Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chain]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a matter of courtesy to the House, I should like to explain that, because there is a Cabinet meeting this morning, I shall not be able to be present for the whole of the debate. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, will be present when I am not able to be here and I hope to come back later this morning. I hope that, in the circumstances, the House will understand and will not think me discourteous on this traditional House of Commons occasion.

Madam Speaker: The House understands and appreciates the comments made by the Leader of the House.

Adjournment (Easter)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Tom Cox: In the Christmas Adjournment debate I spoke about the problems which, sadly, existed then at St. George's hospital, Tooting, which is in my constituency. It is one of the largest hospitals in London and it serves the health needs of people living in a very wide area of south London. It is an excellent hospital. No one would question the skills or the care of its staff, whatever role they may play in the day-to-day running of that hospital.
When I spoke in December, I highlighted the concerns and problems of senior consultants, doctors and nursing staff at the hospital and the continuous pressure that they faced in providing the health care that they wanted to provide and that the general public expected. I spoke about the visits that I had made to the hospital and the meetings that I had had with members of staff. I return to that issue today.
More than three months have passed since I last spoke about St. George's hospital and, sadly, the problems still exist. Following my speech in December, I received a letter dated 11 January 1996 from the Minister for Health. He commented, as I did, on the dedication of the staff at St. George's hospital. He talked of increased funding and of the pressures on hospitals; and of seeking to improve arrangements for the discharge of patients. He said that, last year, the hospital had received 25 five-star awards in the national health service performance tables.
I sent the Minister's letter to Dr. Millard, a senior consultant physician at St. George's hospital. That gentleman was the doctor who wrote to me last year pointing out the problems and who showed me round when I made my visits to the hospital. Dr. Millard was not impressed by the Minister's letter. He sent me a reply dated 22 January 1996, in which he questioned the Minister's claim that finances had been increased and pointed out, as I did in the Christmas Adjournment debate, that Wandsworth health authority had seen a cut in its budget of 24 per cent. since 1993.
We in Wandsworth have lost a great deal of funding and the real question that was not answered by the Minister is about the extent to which the increases that he referred to relate to the sizeable sums of money that we have lost in recent years. That is what Dr. Millard, staff at St. George's and I, as the local Member of Parliament, believe to be the question.
Dr. Millard says:
There has been no increase in the number of beds at St. George's. There is a plan to increase the number of beds by eight which is obviously inadequate in the present circumstances. There has been no improvement in the arrangements for discharging patients and we still have patients in acute beds who could be looked after in the community.
The reference to the NHS tables is something which staff of the hospital find particularly unreasonable. Twenty-five star awards do not reflect what is going on and seems to us nothing more than Government propaganda.
That is the response of a senior doctor at the hospital to the Minister's letter. The Minister told me and local people, "Don't worry, things are not that bad," but a senior doctor working at the hospital says that the problems that they face in the hospital's day-to-day running are not being tackled by the Government.
I also received a letter dated 24 January 1996 from Dr. Elizabeth Vallance, the chairlady of St. George's Healthcare NHS trust. She said:
Thank you for taking the trouble to let me see Gerry Malone's letter to you.
I am glad he is so fulsome in his praise of St. George's. Our problems, of course, remain but we are doing our level best to deal with them within our resources.
I also received a letter that refers to St. George's from the British Medical Association, dated 11 January. It states that there is
a lack of slack in the hospital system due to the run down in the number of beds … wards are being closed for financial reasons such as reducing staff numbers".
There is a total lack of preparation for the discharge of patients, which means that
beds are blocked by elderly patients who are unable to be discharged into the community and therefore remain in hospital.
None of the responses that I have received since my December Adjournment debate speech has agreed with what the Minister told me in his letter.
In February, I was approached by the "World in Action" television programme about St. George's hospital and told it what I knew. It approached doctors, staff and patients at the hospital and in March, it produced a programme devoted solely to the problems of St. George's hospital, Tooting. I doubt whether any major television company would spend time and money producing a programme if there was not a serious issue involved. After that programme, I received a vast number of letters from


people all over the country saying that they had the same problems—the staff and the hospital are great, but the services and resources that they get are not enough to provide the sort of care that they want to give. I and the people working in St. George's hospital make that charge again today.
Ministers do not want to face the facts. London and St. George's have lost millions of pounds in recent years. That money has gone out of London to other areas well outside it. I have some facts that show why we in Wandsworth regard the issue as crucial. Hospital admissions in Wandsworth are 18 per cent. above the national average. It is in the highest 10 per cent. in the country for hospital admissions of the elderly. It has one of the lowest—15 per cent.—day centre elderly attendances because of insufficient day centre provision in the borough. Out of 366 national districts, Wandsworth is the 21st most deprived area. That is our position, and the hospital, its staff, local people and the British Medical Association all know it.
I again highlight that we urgently need extra funding for the hospital, so that it can provide the sort of care that it wishes to provide and that the community needs and seeks. I close by begging Ministers to start listening and doing something to tackle my concerns, because they will not go away. The position has sadly worsened because of the lack of action between December and early April. It will continue to worsen unless, at long last, we get Ministers who listen to the people running the system and start to give us in Wandsworth the adequate funding that is so urgently needed.

Mr. David Alton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is an opportune time to discuss violence on television and in the electronic media generally because on the day that we return after the Easter recess, we shall have the Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill, following completion of its Lords stages. There will be an opportunity to discuss whether we should include a V-chip—V for violence—in new television sets to be manufactured in the United Kingdom.
I can report already that an all-party group of hon. Members has supported such an amendment, which has been lodged for discussion before it can be tabled. On video violence, I draw attention to the early-day motion that stands in my name and those of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It is supported by Members on both sides of the House and has more than 200 signatures objecting to the release for home viewing by the British Board of Film Classification of the video of the film "Natural Born Killers".
I shall discuss those two specific questions and then deal with the general issues that they raise. First, the European Parliament has considered the V-chip and said that it wants Europe-wide action on its inclusion in television sets. It is not some faraway technology for the distant future. It was invented in Canada three years ago and on 14 March, Keith Spicer, the chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, said:

The Canadian public, and in particular parents, have told us they want further action to protect their children against gratuitous and glamorized TV violence. Nearly two million Canadians have signed petitions saying this, and scores of parent, teacher, medical and public interest groups have spoken up for a sensible balance between protecting children and protecting creative freedom.
The Canadian Parliament has already decided that the V-chip will be made available from later this year in all new television sets. It recognises, as I do, and as Lady Howe has recently said in this context, that that is a tool in the armoury of parents and not the solution. Broadcasters must continue to be responsible about what is broadcast, but it can be a useful weapon for parents who wish to sift what their children watch. The American Congress has taken the same decision. Instead of waiting, or pushing the matter to a Select Committee for discussion, we should consider carefully the legislation in Canada and the United States and take seriously our obligation to do something similar.
I am grateful that the Home Office has already indicated its strong support for the proposal. When I raised the matter with the BBC, it too had no objection in principle to the V-chip being included in new television sets. The only question mark so far has been raised by the Department of National Heritage. I understand that the Secretary of State for National Heritage was misquoted in the Financial Times last week, when it was implied that she did not support such a proposal. I hope that there is an open mind and that we shall have a chance to consider the issue in the context of the Broadcasting Bill.
Similarly, I hope that we shall reconsider gratuitous video violence. Two years ago, in an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which received widespread support throughout the House, we decided to take action against material that was likely to contain gratuitous violence and might have a psychologically damaging effect on the children who saw it.
That amendment was passed, so I found it amazing that, a few weeks ago, James Ferman of the British Board of Film Classification passed for home viewing—as distinct from what is already available for viewing in cinemas, where there are much tighter controls on the age of people seeing the material—"Natural Born Killers". The House should bear it in mind that that film contains 50 random killings and involves an orgy of bloodshed. The perpetrators of the crimes simply ride off into the sunset with no action taken against them. Is that the sort of thing we want our children to see; more to the point, is it in accordance with the new law that Parliament enacted?
If James Ferman and the BBFC are incapable of telling the difference between a film such as "Schindler's List", in which the violence is set in a moral framework, and "Natural Born Killers", it is time that we appointed a new board. The issue needs to be taken much more seriously.

Dr. Robert Spink: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that guns have been available in this country for many years, yet only recently have there been the terrible tragedies of Hungerford and Dunblane. Will he speculate on what might have changed to cause guns to be used so violently? Could it possibly be the continual diet of violence that we and our children are getting?

Mr. Alton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that question. That has been one of the significant changes in this country, and I shall return to that subject. I agree with him.
Before to my election to the House 17 years ago, I worked with children with special needs, many of whom were excluded from school because of disturbance or maladjustment. Those children were not exposed to the high level of gratuitous violence that seems to pour into our homes now, particularly through the video, but also through computer games, in which they are given choices that involve garrotting or raping their victims. Clearly, the scale and nature of what our youngsters are exposed to today is very different from that of two decades ago, and we must take that issue seriously.
The context of my amendment two years ago was the killing of a young boy, James Bulger, in the city of Liverpool, by two nine-year-olds. In the aftermath of the verdicts, the trial judge remarked on "the striking similarities" between scenes in the video "Child's Play 3" and the attack on James Bulger. Whether people accept the definite link, it has to be said that that film and 440 other videos had been hired during the previous few years by the father of one of the boys. The videos included soft pornography, violent horror and necrophilia. In Manchester at almost the same time, a chant from the same film was used by the torturers of the teenager Susan Capper. She was taunted with that chant while she was subjected to the most brutal and horrifying assault. Eventually, she died.
Meanwhile, in Norway, the film "Power Rangers", which was shown in the United Kingdom on Saturday mornings, was withdrawn and a link was suggested between the killing of a five-year-old girl by her six-year-old friends and an episode of the programme. During the very same week, the Lincoln coroner, Roger Atkinson, said that an episode in the ITV series "Cracker", in which two characters were stabbed to death, could have led to the murder of a midwife 12 hours later. Granada Television dismissed the coroner's remarks as only his "opinion".
It is a fact that about 400 killings, 119 woundings and 27 sex attacks on women are screened every week in this country. We are told that that is only a reflection of real life, but that is an absurdity because there are only 14 killings in an average week in real-life Britain, not 400.
Violence in Britain and America—where it is considerably worse—has become gratuitous and random. Gruesome, violent death, mutilation and serial killing have all become an art form that can be turned on or off with the flick of a switch. The climate of violence—real and imagined—has led to ordinary citizens living in fear. People no longer feel safe in their homes, let alone in the parks or streets, or at night time on public transport. Security companies and the alarm systems that they sell for personal use, for cars, homes, offices and workplaces, are a booming industry.
Meanwhile, the entertainment industry seems to be in the throes of a passionate love affair with violence, embracing it at every opportunity. We are becoming emotionally deadened by the horrors that we witness and have come to accept violence as normal.
When Lord Rees-Mogg was chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council, he said:
Television is an extremely important reinforcement agency in most of the areas in which it operates.
British academics continue to agonise about the links between behaviour and what people see. The American Psychiatric Association linked television to 50 per cent.

of crime in the United States. By adolescence, a young American will have seen 100,000 acts of violence and 8,000 murders on television.
As the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) implied in his intervention, real crime has risen inexorably in this country. One in three of those of us who were born here in the 1950s now has a criminal conviction, and in a third of cases it involves violence. Professor Elizabeth Newsome and nearly 30 child psychologists, child psychiatrists and paediatricians published a paper, which I asked them to write, courageously stating that they had previously been "naive" in underestimating the links between how people behave and what they see.
Our own Royal College of Psychiatrists has also pointed to media violence as one area in which tighter controls could help protect vulnerable children. The Professional Association of Teachers spoke to 1,000 teachers in different parts of the United Kingdom, and more than 90 per cent. of respondents believed that children's emotional, social and moral development was being damaged, sometimes irrevocably, by what they saw.
For years, national paranoia has led us to tilt at imaginary Spanish windmills and French farmers, while we remain indifferent to the Americanisation of British values and our way of life. British culture has been increasingly dictated to by American tastes in everything, from what we eat to what we watch. Some of the least attractive aspects of life in modern Britain, such as drug dependency, street crime and mugging, screen violence and the disintegration of family and community life, were all manifesting themselves in the States many years before they were washed up on our shores. It is a fact that, when America sneezes, we tend to catch cold.
If we are not convinced by what the psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers and parents say, let us put on record what David Puttnam—probably one of the most admired people in the field of creating good film and video material—has to say on the subject:
What proof are we looking for, I wonder? Are we going to wait a decade or two to see if there is a fresh outbreak of gruesome murders before deciding perhaps 'Driller Killer' wasn't the thing to show the kids after all? Does the railway company wait for someone to be killed by a train before fencing off the railway line?
He added:
Does common sense not tell us that it is foolish to debate whether watching sadistic pornographic films makes children into dangerous psychopaths? Leaving aside the impact this influence may or may not have in future for the rest of us, what is abundantly clear is that, for them, as immature human beings, watching sadistic pornographic films has to be a very bad idea".
If the advertisers in this country thought that there was no link between what people watch and how they behave, they would not have spent some £4,000 million over the past 12 months advertising their wares on television and trying to sell them. The chairman of Unilever once said that he knows that half of what is broadcast on television has no impact on those who see it, but the only problem is that he does not know which half. Clearly, there are more than just casual links in this regard. There is now increasing empirical evidence— worldwide—of the links between how people behave and what they see. Time and again, the evidence points to a correlation.
When we debate the Broadcasting Bill immediately after the House returns, we shall have a chance to put real power into the hands of television viewers, by giving them the V-chip. We shall also have a chance to amend


the legislation to allow for a national audit to be conducted each year, so that the programme makers have to report to Parliament on the level of violence that they transmit. We shall also have the chance to bring to task bodies such as the British Board of Film Classification and Warner Brothers UK, which creates films such as "Natural Born Killers".
On the day after the Dunblane massacre, the managing director of Warner Brothers UK telephoned me from California to say that, in the light of what had happened, it had withdrawn, for the time being, "Natural Born Killers" from the home viewing market—it was to have been released on Mothering Sunday. However, he said that he would review the decision in a few weeks from now. I leave hon. Members with the following question: if it was not right to screen that film on the day after the terrible massacre, what will make it right and proper to screen it in the weeks to come?

Mr. Jon Trickett: Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech this early in the debate. When hon. Members make a maiden speech, they suffer from nerves, and it is helpful to make it early in the debate. I am conscious of the traditions of the House, and that when one makes a maiden speech, one refers to one's predecessor. On this occasion, it is easy and a pleasure to refer to Derek Enright—and it is something that I would have wanted to do.
Derek Enright was an extremely hard-working and diligent Member of the House. I know that to be the case, because of comments that hon. Members from both sides of the House have made to me since my arrival. He was well loved, as Madam Speaker commented when I first entered the House. In a short space of time, he established a presence in the Chamber and throughout the Palace. It is a tragedy that he was perhaps unable to fulfil all his ambitions.
Hon. Members may not know that Derek Enright made a major impact in the constituency. During the by-election, I met hundreds of local constituents, residents and voters, almost all of whom told me—unprompted—of their deep affection for their Member of Parliament. He was loved in the constituency. The degree of unanimity in what I heard about my predecessor wherever I went during the by-election was remarkable.
Obviously, it is difficult to single out any one or two aspects of work that a Member of Parliament will have undertaken. My predecessor did a great deal of work in many areas. I know that he worked closely with his neighbouring Members of Parliament, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse), on health-related issues. In particular, they were working on issues related to emphysema and other health problems suffered by coal miners in the area.
I know that my predecessor would be horrified, as I am, at the proposals to change the character of the health service in the locality. There appear to have been secret discussions at a higher level—in the Wakefield area, in Pontefract, in Quarry house in Leeds, and in London—about plans to change the character of the health service

and eventually to remove some services from local hospitals. Those matters are extremely worrying to me—and I am sure that they would have been worrying to my predecessor. Later today, if I get the opportunity, I shall speak in the debate about the health services in the Wakefield metropolitan district. I shall make some firm points and express my views, in particular, about the poor quality of paediatric services in the area.
I shall do my best to emulate my predecessor's achievements, hard work and diligence—in every respect, bar one. That one thing relates to something that hon. Members will understand—that is, his ability to convert modern-day, idiomatic English in pop songs into the classical language of Latin. I am afraid that I could never aspire to—and I am not sure that I would want to—such an amazing and precocious talent. With those few reflections, I am sure that all hon. Members will remember very warmly my predecessor's contribution to this place.
Hon. Members will know that I was elected in a by-election, but they may not know that there have been 12 Members of Parliament for Hemsworth this century—which is a remarkably high number. It is tragic to note that seven of those hon. Members died while holding office. There have been six by-elections—so the people in the area have become rather familiar with them. In fact, after I had been selected as a Labour candidate, one of the old stagers came up to me and said, "Normally in the Labour party, we tend to look at a person's politics and what his ideological position is on various issues. However, because there have been so many tragic deaths of sitting Members in Hemsworth, we are concerned about whether you have a health certificate. We want you to represent us for a long time."
Traditionally, Hemsworth has been associated with the Labour party—indeed, since the foundation of the Labour party, it has represented Hemsworth. Hemsworth has been so safe that I am told that The Guardian Weekly in Manchester coined the phrase, "They don't count the votes out there, they weigh them," for the constituency. That has been said about many other constituencies, but we believe that it was coined in relation to Hemsworth.
I have looked back at the maiden speeches and the records of my 11 predecessors this century. I discovered that the seat has been so safe for the Labour party that on two occasions the Labour nominee arrived with his nomination papers—I am referring to George Griffiths and Horace Holmes—for the returning officer, only to be told that he had been elected because no other candidate was prepared to stand for the seat. That illustrates the fortress nature of the support that the Labour party has had in Hemsworth this century.
Bearing that history in mind, I happily went with my agent to the returning officer at Wakefield town hall, imagining that that exceptionally sensible precedent would be followed in my case—I imagined that the returning officer might be able to declare me elected as there were no other candidates and because of the nature of the opinion polls and the state of the Hemsworth constituency. One could imagine my chagrin to discover that there was not one but 10 candidates fighting for the seat. It was a daunting prospect for me to face.
However, apparently, it was not as daunting as the prospect facing the Conservative party candidate. After the count had finished, I noted that he had retained his


deposit and that he was going around in a very gleeful manner. When I asked him why he was so happy, he said that he was delighted because it was the first time in a parliamentary election that he had managed to get into second place. That was interesting; obviously he was more daunted than I had been.
Hemsworth has always been associated with the coal mining industry, which, as we know, has created wonderful communities throughout this country and elsewhere, with a powerful community spirit—the sense of caring and sharing and all the similar values that we associate with such communities.
From Featherstone in the north—my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford was born there, represented it for a time and played for the famous rugby league team—through Hemsworth down to South Kirkby and South Elmsall in the south, and from Upton across to Ackworth, Crofton and all the other communities, including Rye Hill and Fitzwilliam, which make up Hemsworth, the spirit of community and the strong community values that the miners contributed wherever they built up communities are evident.
The miners were interested in many things other than mining; sport was one of the great talents that emerged from those villages and small towns. Rugby league was played throughout the area. Frickley Athletic, in the south of the constituency, was supported by the miners with a subscription from Frickley pit for many years, and it is sad that that has now finished because of the closure of the mining industry in the area.
Mr. Geoffrey Boycott came from the constituency. We cannot help his politics—although we shall do our best, even now, to work on his repentance in relation to those matters—but he was a sturdy player for Yorkshire county cricket. I sometimes think that, if representatives of Yorkshire came down to Hemsworth and looked at the youngsters there, we might be able to rebuild our team for the future.
The mining industry was profoundly important in the formation of the communities that I now have the privilege to represent. The maiden speeches of my 11 predecessors read like a social and economic history of the area. Together, they form a remarkable document.
The first Member of Parliament for Hemsworth at the turn of the century was elected as a Liberal and came across to the Labour party as soon as it was founded, so we can claim that we had one of the first Labour Members of Parliament. He was a miner and described in his maiden speech the 400-odd pits that existed in the Yorkshire area—he had visited the coalfaces of almost all of them. Another Member of Parliament for the area described 12 separate working pits within walking distance of his house.
The experience of the constituency reflects the tragic history of the decline of an industry. My predecessor, Derek Enright, mentioned the last working pit. I now have to report in my maiden speech that no working pits are left in the Hemsworth area. That is a tragedy for the community. Although to an extent we understand that the industry has been in long-term secular decline, it is hard to forgive the motives of some people in high office who adopted a particular political position regarding the mining industry.
In the area profoundly strong communities remain, which were originally concentrated around the coal mines. Now that the coal mines no longer exist, their reason for coming into being has disappeared and there is a gradual process of economic and social decline.
I have with me a list of every benefits office in the country, showing the amount of family credit allocated to families in each office area and the number of families in each area who receive family credit. It is a very interesting document. We know that family credit is the Government's way of subsidising poor employers. When a household earns income below the mean poverty thresholds, the Government allocate family credit to the household.
In the two years for which those figures have been published—from 1993 to 1995—we have witnessed, throughout the country, a remarkably even increase of about 35 per cent. in the number of families receiving family credit in each benefit office. The figures for the Hemsworth benefit office, however, reveal a tragic position. We have there not a 35 per cent. increase, not even a 70 per cent. increase, but almost double that—in two years, there has been a 117 per cent. increase in the number of families receiving family credit.
That is tragic. It must be connected with the fact that the mines have closed and the redundancy money is gone. It reflects the way in which the labour market in the United Kingdom has been casualised. It reflects low pay in the area. It reflects the increase of agency work and unfortunate practices. It also reflects the need for us to change macro-economic policies. It shows the need for a minimum wage. Why should the state subsidise poor employers through this mechanism? It demonstrates as well, in my view and in the view of many hundreds of people I have met, the need for the social chapter, to ensure that workers' rights are adequately protected.
I represent an area which I have found to be wonderful, and which I am still finding out about. The communities that make up the constituency are lovely communities, which find themselves in a difficult position. I pledge myself to try to do my best to follow in the footsteps of all my predecessors and to work hard for the economic and social regeneration of the communities that make up Hemsworth. I thank the House for giving me such a good hearing.

Mr. David Amess: It is an honour and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) on the occasion of his maiden speech. The last time I followed a maiden speech I followed three; it is easier dealing with one. The hon. Gentleman spoke fluently, without any sign of nerves. He showed great humour and, early on, great command of his subject. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Derek Enright, was a much-loved constituency Member of Parliament, whose views on several pro-life issues I shared. His untimely death is a great loss to the House.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth comes to the House with a reputation as leader of Leeds city council.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the late and lamented former Member for Hemsworth, will he place on record the work that that hon. Member did for relations with Portugal as secretary of the British-Portuguese parliamentary group, of which I am chairman? He will be sadly missed for his knowledge of that country and the contribution that he made to parliamentary relations between this Parliament and the ancient Parliament of Portugal.

Mr. Amess: I thank my hon. Friend for prompting me. I have no expertise on that subject, but I am sure that that was a worthy tribute.
Finally, I would say to the hon. Member for Hemsworth that my wife supports the Leeds football team but that is as far as the affinity goes with his former council. I share his admiration for Geoffrey Boycott, an outstanding cricketer whose politics I much applaud. We look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman in the months ahead.
That is the end of the bipartisan approach. I wish to draw three matters to the attention of the House before we adjourn for the Easter recess. I may best describe them as analysing what the Labour and Liberal parties do once they are given power. The first matter concerns the behaviour of Liberal and Labour-controlled Essex county council, the second concerns the behaviour of Labour and Liberal-controlled Havering council and the third concerns the purported policy of the Liberal party on religious education in schools.
My colleagues on this side of the House are fully prepared to accept responsibility for the actions of Her Majesty's Government. However, we are a little tired for being blamed for everything when the socialists control Europe. In my part of Essex, we are looking very closely at how the local Labour Member of the European Parliament has performed since his election: he is very good at being photographed, but he has not delivered on any of his election promises. The Labour and the Liberal parties, and not the Conservatives, control Essex county council. We are in crisis in Essex because of that council's wicked budget decisions.

Dr. Spink: I wish to draw together the two points that my hon. Friend has made regarding the Member of the European Parliament and the Essex county council. The Member of the European Parliament denounced in my local press the cut in expenditure on the flood warning system on Canvey island in my constituency. I was surprised that he found his way to Canvey island sea wall, as I do not think that he had been there before. He seemed to be entirely unaware that the Labour councillors on Essex county council—which was given a 3.5 per cent. increase in expenditure this year—cut that vital system. How about that for inconsistency?

Mr. Amess: Never mind about not having visited Canvey island I understand that the Member of the European Parliament had not been to Europe before his election. There is no point in running for office unless one can achieve something. What is the point in candidates for county or district councils and for the European Parliament running for office if, when elected, they simply blame the Government? Upon election, such representatives should accept some responsibility.
Essex county council's budget proposal is a disgrace. It is sitting on huge reserves, but it has cut the fire service budget by more than £1 million. As a result, there will be no new recruitment this year and no training provided for fire officers. However, in the literature being pushed through letter boxes during the local election campaign, one councillor claims that he has saved one of the local fire stations. That is absolute hypocrisy. The council has also cut the budget for libraries by £1 million and, as a result, no new books will be bought this year.
I thought that new Labour was supposed to be caring—that is what the Liberal party is supposed to be about also. However, that is not the case with Essex county council. Care in the community is a shambles: its delivery is so poor that there is an inquiry into the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) recently led a delegation to the Home Office in order to discuss the fire service. It appears that Essex county council, in spite of the fact that it is sitting on huge reserves, did not apply for funding under section 19 before pushing through a budget that will cut expenditure on the fire service. That is the fault not of the Government, but of the Labour and Liberal-controlled Essex county council. If those councillors do not want to accept responsibility for their actions, they should resign and the Conservatives will take control.
My second point concerns Havering council. I have given notice to my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) about my intention to raise the issue. I am meddling, if you like, in Havering council matters because it wickedly interfered in the education of my children. I have five children, all of whom attend a state school in my constituency of Basildon. I never speak publicly about my religious views—that is a personal matter—but, privately, my wife and I, as Catholics, believe in single-sex education.
There are no single-sex Catholic schools in my constituency, so we applied to send our son to the nearest single-sex school, which is located in Havering. The wickedness that resulted from our application defies belief. However, the chickens have come home to roost for the Labour and Liberal councillors concerned.
I was in America on the evening that the school's governing body met to discuss my son's application. It decided to accept that application on the strength of our belief in the Catholic religion. The school is non-grant-maintained and non-selective. My wife and I did not know that our son had been offered a place at the school until we read it in our local newspapers. A Labour councillor, Miss or Mrs. Feeney—

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Ms.

Mr. Amess: That night, Ms Feeney went to the town hall to consult a former Member of Parliament, Arthur Latham, and the chief executive, who used to be the Labour leader of Basildon council. They decided to get to work on the issue. When I returned from America, I found my wife and children extremely upset. As a result of those wicked actions, party invitations had been withdrawn from small children who did not understand the reason why. You can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, my disgust when I learned what Labour Members have been up to. They say that what they do as individuals does not affect the party: that is a load of rubbish and their hypocrisy should be aired publicly.

Sir Michael Neubert: Was the Ms Feeney to whom my hon. Friend referred the same woman who came originally from Dagenham and somehow qualified for a council property in Havering, which she then bought? She was then elected to the council and became a close confidant and ally of Arthur "Lothario" Latham, and apparently she is now purchasing a house across the border in Essex. Should we not be told more of that intriguing story?

Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend will be aware that, when the story broke, the newspapers carried the headline, "Basildon schools not good enough for local Member of Parliament". My office was immediately inundated by telephone calls making allegations of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford has described to the House. I have never abused my parliamentary privilege, and I kept to myself all the accusations that were made to my office.
The Labour councillor in Basildon who has been instrumental in spreading the story is currently in prison awaiting trial for a serious crime. I understand that his partner, who was also a councillor for one year, disappeared suddenly. The councillor resigned from Basildon council last week, but I cannot say any more about the matter as the trial is pending. However, I can comment about Havering council.
If one were to read the weekend newspapers carefully, one would see the corruption within that council and the nonsense that has gone on. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is in his place. He is an old boy of Campion school, which I attended also. The leader of the Liberal group on the council accused the hon. Gentleman of interfering in the allocation of my son's school place. We have now discovered that the relationship between the leaders of the Labour and the Liberal groups—who are power-sharing—goes way beyond any original understanding.
I have many letters about the matter which illustrate a catalogue of abuse. Labour councillors have rebelled. I have in my hand a letter signed by four Labour councillors which states:
Dear Comrades, It is with deep regret that we have resigned from membership of the Labour group. In spite of the 'anti socialist' nonsense you may be hearing you should be in no doubt that we will continue to support the administration in the implementation of the 1994 Labour Party manifesto. The causes of our resignations are complex and cumulative.
If we go further into the reasons, they are appalling. The letter continues:
A couple of weeks ago all members of the Council, Labour and Conservative alike, received a letter announcing Arthur's full return to health and his willingness to take on all of his enemies 'within and without'. We don't know if this has frightened the Tories but it frightens us.
The letter goes on and on.
I am delighted that the Lib-Lab power-sharing arrangement in Havering has collapsed. The chickens have well and truly come home to roost. I hope that the same happens to Essex county council.
I shall end my speech by mentioning the report in the newspaper about the Liberal party policy on religious education. I just could not believe it when I read in the newspaper last week—I have given notice to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that I would mention his name—that the spokesman for education policy in the Liberal party had said that in an ideal world there would be no religious education in our schools.

Mr. Tony Banks: Hear, hear.

Mr. Amess: Some hon. Members say, "Hear, hear," so there is some support for that view. But I found it deeply offensive and I believe that many of our fellow citizens found that statement deeply offensive.
If I were asked what is wrong with society at the moment, I would say that it was the deep arrogance that

humanity is everything and that there is no powerful force that we should consider. I am not bothered what religion anyone is. Christianity is what I care about and I wish to see all our churches supported. I certainly want to see religious instruction given in our schools.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the debate continues, I have noticed what one might call a running commentary from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. I taken due note of those who have, so to speak, informally spoken already.

Mr. Amess: The source of the running commentary is surprising. I hate to harm the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but he promised me recently that he would be nice to me. He has broken his promise before Lent has duly finished.

Mr. David Rendel: I have had an opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is our education spokesman, since that report appeared in the paper, because I was myself concerned about it. It is true that everybody in the Liberal Democrat party believes that religious education should continue in schools, and it is clear from my discussion with my hon. Friend that he did not say that in an ideal situation there should be no religious education. Indeed, he believes that religious education is an important part of the education of all our children.

Mr. Amess: I entirely accept that.

Mr. Alton: For the sake of the record, it is right for me to point out precisely what was said. It was reported in The Independent newspaper some weeks ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that, in an ideal world there would be no more religious schools, which theoretically would close all Anglican, Catholic, Jewish and nonconformist schools. He also said that daily acts of worship would be ended in that ideal world. I share the view of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) that that would be a deplorable development if that so-called ideal world, which I would regard as a nightmare world, were ever to occur.

Mr. Amess: This has been an interesting opportunity to explore what the policy is on religious education. I support religious education in all our schools. As this is the Easter Adjournment debate and no doubt the whole of United Kingdom will be rejoicing and eating their Easter eggs, I would have thought that religious education was especially important at this time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) very far, but I do join him in offering congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett). His maiden speech was refreshing and we all enjoyed it. It showed good humour and it had all the ingredients. First, he paid a warm tribute—with which I know the whole House will agree—to his predecessor, Derek Enright. Secondly, he gave us an interesting reminder of the changes in his constituency and, finally—and crucially for a maiden speech—he made an important political point about the poverty wages that are paid in his area. I am sure that the whole House will look forward to him speaking many more times and giving us the same enjoyment.
I wish to raise two issues, which can both be summed up with initials—VOCs and SK5. The first is a national issue—I have given notice to the Leader of the House that I will raise it—and the other is a local constituency issue. The question of VOCs, or volatile organic compounds, is extremely important to all of us. Very few people understand VOCs, yet they affect all of us and the air we breathe. They are important not just when we are out in the street, but in the workplace and in homes. VOCs can be highly toxic and some of them are known to cause cancers. They are part of very complicated photochemical reactions which produce a photochemical smog that can aggravate conditions such as asthma and also cause headaches and nausea in some people.
The Environment Select Committee, of which I am the Chairman, produced a report 12 months ago. I wish to find out today what progress the Government are making in controlling air quality, because that is extremely important. As long ago as 1988, we signed up to the United Nations environment programme convention on long-range, trans-boundary air pollution. Under that convention, we were supposed to produce a 30 per cent. reduction in emissions by 1999, compared with 1988. It is important that the Government tell us exactly what they intend to do about meeting those targets.
In their response to the Environment Select Committee, the Government suggested that they would make good progress. We certainly got the impression that in several areas they would try to reach that 30 per cent. reduction target before the actual treaty requirement occurred. But the need for a reduction is here, now. Last summer, we had a series of incidents in which air quality was extremely bad in our cities. It is no good delaying reaching the target until the last minute. We should aim to reach it quickly.
The Government have done a little bit to produce a tax differential on premium unleaded petrol, but they could do much more. They are not doing enough about the emissions from industrial processes. I hope that the Minister will give us an update on how far and how soon the Government will achieve those targets.
I suggest that installing the proper equipment in industrial premises to recover VOCs, which would otherwise escape to the air, is not just good for our health but good for our industry. On several occasions recently, the Secretary of State for the Environment has talked about opportunities for environmental protection industries. It has been pointed out that others, especially the Germans, have scooped up the environmental industrial market because they have been at the forefront of attempts to achieve targets for environmental improvements. As a result, their industries develop the skills and take the opportunities to produce the equipment. If we are not careful in Britain, we will fall behind.
I want to put pressure on the Government for a clear update on meeting target emissions of volatile organic compounds in the short term, to ensure that we do not suffer too many bad-quality air episodes this summer—and in the long term, to meet agreed requirements.
When will the Government's air strategy policy be published? That was due to be appear last year, but I understand that it will be June at the earliest before it is produced. We await also the Government's response to

the royal commission on transport, and particularly to its recommendation to reduce the number of cars on our roads and emissions, if VOCs are to be significantly reduced. Also, what is the position on VOC emissions in buildings?
My second subject concerns the way that postcodes affect my constituents. The Government may argue that postcodes are a matter for the Post Office, not Parliament—but I suggest that they have wide implications. I am particularly concerned about a new housing estate, Fairways, in north Reddish, but the problem also exists on the Droylesden-Audenshaw border and between those parts of my constituency that are in Denton and Reddish.
The Post Office claims that postcodes exist only to facilitate postal deliveries. If that were so, I would not mind. I have sympathised in the past when the Post Office complained that insurance companies and others have misused postcodes, in determining premiums. The situation is changing rapidly, because the Post Office is busily selling postcodes to all sorts of people.
The Post Office claims that it is selling postcodes so that companies can get delivery addresses right, but the Post Office knows that many purchasers of postcodes use them for other purposes. Under the Data Protection Act 1988, one has the right to correct a computerised entry with which one disagrees. Provided that the Post Offices uses its record of an address for the sole purpose of postal deliveries, it does not have to do anything—but as soon as the Post Office sells that information for any other purpose, an individual should have the right to record that he disagrees with that information.
The problem is particularly acute when an address is used by not just the Post Office but others, which can be particularly well demonstrated in north Reddish, where residents may live in Stockport but have a Manchester M19 postcode. In addition, the Post Office is insisting that their address should include the words, "Levershulme, Manchester". Those residents do not live in Levershulme, Manchester, but that requirement affects their insurance premiums. Also, anyone driving from Stockport to a house in Levershulme will come to the Manchester boundary, then start looking for the street name in question.
If the Post Office continues to insist on a Manchester postcode, it should at least accept that residents of the Fairways estate, for example. are entitled to show their address as "North Reddish, Stockport, Manchester M19"—and the rest of the postcode. As long as the Post Office denies those residents the right to identify their addresses as being in Reddish or Stockport, the Post Office is insisting on the use of a misleading address, causing confusion for people trying to find houses or provide services.
The Post Office is causing unnecessary hardship to such residents by selling their postcodes to all sorts of organisations, which then insist that they know the correct address and that the individual resident does not know where he or she lives.
I have pursued that issue with the firm of conveyancing solicitors that dealt with the Fairways estates, because some buyers were misled into thinking that the properties were in Stockport—they are, but they do not have a Stockport postcode. I have taken the matter up also with the Association of British Insurers. I want the Minister to pursue the problem with the Post Office, so that, if it


wants to sell postcodes for any purpose, the residents of Fairways estate should have the right to correct their address. I hope that he will go further and tell the Post Office that instead of that complicated solution, the residents in question should be allocated an SK5 postcode, which will show that they live in Reddish or Stockport. That would avoid the nonsense of them being identified for postal purposes as living in Manchester or Levershulme.

Dr. Robert Spink: It is a pleasure to speak soon after the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett). I spent election day in Hemsworth and noted a range of quality among the parliamentary candidates. Right at the top, along with the hon. Gentleman who won the election, was the Conservative candidate. He is a good, sound, local man and he did a wonderful job. I am sure that we will see him enter the House eventually. At the bottom of the range was Mr. Mark Thomas—a mischievous, misleading, nasty little person.
Beneath him, if hon. Members can believe that, was the candidate for Arthur Scargill's party. That candidate misled the country into believing that there is such a thing as old Labour and new Labour, but that is not so. There is just the Labour party. In his Adjournment debate two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) spoke of the poor lady who lay dying of cancer on the pavement outside Kingston general hospital in 1978 because of the Labour party. My hon. Friend explained that there is no such thing as old Labour or new Labour, but just Labour. That is what you get—and I am sure that the country will reject it. However, I do not want to be partisan this morning.
I want to raise not a political problem but the issue of unfair business rates imposed on riding schools and equestrian centres. Real despair has arisen because massive rates increases have caused the closure of many livery yards, schools and equestrian centres throughout Britain, as a consequence of last year's revaluation following the rates set in 1990. That revaluation hit the equestrian industry particularly hard.
One riding school in East Anglia closed following an increase in rates from £780 a year to £9,780 a year. The owner had to knock down his stables to ensure that his rates were reduced. There are similar examples in Castle Point of extortionate and entirely unreasonable increased rates for small equestrian centres. There are simple, do-it-yourself livery yards in my area where the monthly rates bill has increased to an amount higher than the yards' audited profit before rates. That situation is not tenable.
The reason for high rateable values is that all stables in Essex at least are rated on the same basis, even though there are many different types. There are racing stables, dressage stables, equestrian centres, competition yards and full livery yards. At the bottom of the scale are the yards that are the particular subject of my remarks—do-it-yourself yards, which are suffering the most.
These stables are perhaps best described as small cottage industries; they are part of the rural fabric of Britain and its traditions, yet they are expected to pay rates as high as those levied on professional Newmarket training stables, according to the valuation officer in my area. So these DIY yards have been put under intolerable pressure by unreasonable rateable values.
Assessing rateable values is the responsibility of the Valuation Office agency. It is therefore not right that Ministers should interfere directly, but I believe that we need some political steer on this important issue. It is such an obvious injustice, and if we cannot fight for right and against wrong in this place, where can we do so?
As Henry Smith, the owner of a small livery yard in Benfleet pointed out in a letter to Horse and Hound, the closure of livery yards will result in a loss of Government revenue, a loss of jobs, and derelict premises or premises which have to be knocked down. I am talking about the loss of facilities that support this quintessentially British traditional activity. Riding is not an elitist sport; it is something that disabled people and young people, especially girls, enjoy very much. Everyone will lose unless some help is offered—most of all, the people trying to scrape together a living from DIY livery yards.
I must acknowledge the steps taken by the Government to help small businesses, among which livery yards may be counted. The Government have introduced a transitional system of phasing to reduce the impact of the 1995 revaluation. The caps on rating increases are more generous for small properties: 5 per cent. in real terms in 1996–97 and only 2.5 per cent. for small domestic or non-domestic properties. Nearly 800,000 small businesses in England and Wales benefit from these lower bills which have resulted from action taken by the Government, but the Government must take further action to protect small DIY livery yards.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has suggested that it may be possible to find a way of helping these yards under the terms of the White Paper on rural England which was published last year. I do not know whether that is possible, but I hope it is. I take succour from the fact that I am supported in my concern by no less distinguished people than the Secretaries of State for Defence, for Education and Employment and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, all of whom have written to various bodies on this subject. A number of other hon. Members share our anxiety too.
I hope that the Government will listen carefully to what I say this morning and will take action to resolve what is for many people a desperate problem.

Mr. David Rendel: I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) on his maiden speech. He seemed to be worried about the number of candidates in his by-election. If he thinks that 10 is a worrying number, it is probably a good thing that he did not take part in the Newbury by-election, where we had a record number of 19 candidates. Had he paid attention to that, however, he would have realised that it is not actually very worrying, since in that by-election only two candidates got more than 2 per cent. of the vote—the Labour party candidate being one of those who failed to reach the 2 per cent. mark.
I am sorry to say that I cannot congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on his speech, as it became clear in the course of it that he did not understand the important difference between worship in schools, which is one thing, and religious education in schools, which is quite another.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise, as the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) did, a subject which I do not think has any party political significance but which


is still of importance to all hon. Members and to our electorates. I refer to the pyramid selling of business club membership, an issue which has come to my attention over the past week or two as a result of a letter that I have received. It is right to raise the subject before we adjourn for Easter, because of the recent Third Reading of the Trading Schemes Bill which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). That Bill has now gone to the Lords. I hope that the Government will ensure that it reaches the statute book and that it is put to good use as soon as possible.
On Third Reading of that Bill last Friday, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) briefly mentioned a business known to him as Titan Marketing, which he said had been operating in some areas of the north. It has also been operating in my constituency, and I am glad to be in a position to give the House further details of this secretive company and to draw it to the attention of the wider public so that people may be warned of the dangers of getting involved in the company.
The letter that I received from a constituent reads in part as follows:
Sirs
Please excuse the fact that this is an anonymous letter, but the reasons for this will become apparent.
Last Sunday I went with a friend to see a business opportunity that he was very excited about. He told me that he had been involved for about two to three weeks but could not give me any details because of a secrecy agreement. He told that there were very large sums of cash changing hands every week and that if I wanted to find out about this I had to go to"—
here he named a school in the constituency—
on any Saturday or Sunday. My curiosity was really aroused and I agreed to go last Sunday despite the £20 fee whether I joined or not.
The organisation is called the TITAN business club and is based in Hamburg, Germany. They have been operating in this country since October 29th of last year. The meeting starts at about 4 pm and lasts till about 8 pm. It consists of three presentations …The meeting is not open to the public and you can only go if you are invited by one of the existing members. At the start we were obliged to sign a secrecy agreement saying that we would not disclose anything about the organisation and agreed to pay 10,000 deutschmarks if we did (this is one of the reasons why I have chosen to remain anonymous). The meeting itself is conducted in a rather unusual style with much clapping, standing ovations and ritual chanting.
It was not until the final presentation that they finally told us what they were about. They ask you to pay £2,500 to join the 'private members club' as they insisted on calling it. You are then required to recruit others to do the same. For the first two recruits you are paid £450and are called a Junior partner. For each subsequent recruit you are paid £1,220 and are called a Senior partner. After your fourth recruit you are in profit. You can only introduce a maximum of two members at any one time and only by bringing them to one of the weekend meetings…It is expressly forbidden to try to publicise the club. The payouts are in cash every Wednesday evening.
One of the unusual features of the club is that all transactions are in cash. They claim that they have no UK bank accounts and that all club records are kept in Germany. There are no information leaflets and they do not want people to take away the membership form from the meeting. I spoke to two club officials, Rob Glas who is the UK regional manager and Alan Simpson who is the regional marketing manager. At first they were both very courteous and polite, but when it became obvious that I was not going to join they declined to discuss things further with me and insisted that I returned the membership form. They both refused to give me any contact phone numbers in this country and told me if I had any further comments I should contact their office in Germany.

I hope that it has become plain from what I have read what an iniquitous scam this company is running and how dangerous it would be to get involved in it.
The letter ends with a few choice comments about how iniquitous the writer feels the scheme to be, and I quite agree with him. Anyone who has any sense will avoid like the plague joining a so-called "business club" of that sort.
I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to alert their constituents to the Titan business club and that Ministers will find ways in which to expose the perpetrators of that scam in the sure knowledge that exposure to the public will ensure that such a scam withers away. There is nothing like the cover of secrecy to allow such a business to thrive.
I am sure that we all agree that it is important for the Titan business club to disappear as quickly as possible. But I must warn hon. Members that, while it has apparently left my constituency—it is very keen to get out while the going is good and to take the subscriptions of the original participants with it—the club has already moved into other constituencies in the south. People should be warned, before it is too late, to take no part in it.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I do not believe that the House should rise before it has addressed the important problem of the shambles in which the Kent highways programme now finds itself. The Government announced £81 million of funding for the Kent highways programme, which was by far the largest amount to be granted to a roads programme in the country, yet the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition controlling Kent county council have that programme totally out of balance.
The reason for the shambles is that, year after year, the council has asked permission to build the Medway relief roads but, year after year, after receiving such permission, it has not gone ahead because it has never been ready to do so. The council has taken the allocated money in those years and put it into other schemes, which have now started. Consequently, the Kent county council highways programme is choked with commitments.
We should remember that the £81 million for this year's highway programme is an absolute record, but that commitments already undertaken by the council have absorbed all but £7 million of that figure. The council has already approved five schemes, amounting to £43 million which it must somehow accommodate within the £7 million. Recently, the council decided to spread the money among three of the schemes.
What worries me is that the council is now trying a sleight-of-hand by spending money this year that may or may not be allocated to it in future years. It has put together a proposal to borrow £20 million to £25 million from Rochester city council, English Partnerships and any other company that is foolish enough to lend to it so that it can proceed with the Medway relief roads. That proposal would choke the Kent highways programme even further.
The council now proposes to ask the Minister with responsibility for local transport and road safety—my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—to agree to that ludicrous proposal. I suggest, in the interests of that area and of sound finances, that the ministerial answer should be a categorical no, not least because we do not need the Wainscott bypass.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Opposition spokesman on roads, recently visited the area. He told the press that the Medway tunnel was a "white elephant", and he blamed the Government because he claimed that they had not funded the connecting roads. Quite frankly, that statement shows appalling ignorance. As I have already explained, the Government have given authorisation for it year after year. The trouble is that Kent county council has spent the money elsewhere.
The roads have been delayed because of incompetence, subterfuge and a failure properly to assess alternative routes—for example, the historic Strood gyratory, which was the original proposal, or the Medway riverside route from Rochester to the junction with the M2, where it crosses the River Medway. The latter route, incidentally, has the virtue of demolishing the city of Rochester civic centre, which could be moved to a magnificent building on the Chatham maritime to serve the Medway towns' new unitary authority.
Not only did the Opposition spokesman on roads express his ignorance in those statements but his approach would sanction the county council's riding roughshod over my constituents by curtailing public consultations and public inquiry before pressing ahead with the proposal.
My constituents in the parishes of Higham, Shorne and Cobham bitterly resent the way in which Kent county council has ridden roughshod over their opinions, because the Wainscott bypass would pass through some of the most beautiful green belt in the London area. That land is very agriculturally productive and is, in fact, the last piece of green belt between the greater London conurbation and the Medway towns. The plan for the bypass should be returned to the drawing board, even at this late stage, so that alternatives can be considered. The case for doing so has been made very clearly on financial and environmental grounds.
If the council were to go ahead with the proposals, the Kent highways programme in 1997–98 would be totally clogged. The council would be spending £30 million to £40 million on the Medway relief roads alone, and it would spend even more on previous commitments. The result of pressing ahead would be that no progress will be made on the Ramsgate harbour road or on the south Thamesside development route, phases 2 and 3, which consists of the roads from Ebbsfleet to Greenhithe in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn).
Failure to proceed with those phases would jeopardise the development of the Thames gateway, which is close to the heart of the Government, and the Ebbsfleet developments, which are close to my constituents' hearts. All in all, the Kent county council highways programme is a sheer and utter shambles.
The development of the Thames gateway has not been helped by the delay in the vital south Thamesside development route, phase 4, which is effectively the Northfleet town bypass. Imagine having the channel tunnel rail link Thames tunnel excavations on one side of a town and the massive construction of the Ebbsfleet international station on the other side—with the monumental numbers of heavy goods vehicles and earth-moving vehicles passing between the two—when the only route between the two sides is through one's town. That horrible prospect is why

the south Thamesside development route, phase 4, must be built before either of those projects is started. They are due to be started imminently.
We are desperate for progress on this project because of the shambolic way in which the Kent county council highways department has been handling it. In February last year, the residents of Northfleet saw the plans for the road. More than a year later, what progress has the Lib-Lab council made on it? It has taken a whole year for the KCC highways department to ask the council planning department for planning permission to build the bypass, and that permission has still not been granted. In fact, it has taken the Conservative Government to nudge the council forward by granting for this financial year a specifically allocated credit approval in order to push the project through along with another one. I can tell the House that my constituents and I will push Kent county council to get that project through because it is vital.
It is ironic that, while Kent county council's highways programme is in a shambles, the financial spokesmen for the Labour and Liberal parties on that council are now talking about a mini-budget for 1996–97, to be announced in June. Do you remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, the last Labour Government of all those years ago, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Denis Healey, came to the House with a succession of mini-budgets every year? We are asked by the Opposition to look forward to the prospect of a Labour Government; well, if one wants to see Labour government in action, one should go along to Kent county council, where mini-budgets and shambles are the order of the day.

Dr. Spink: Can my hon. Friend remind me whether that was the Labour Government who had inflation running at 27 per cent., about 10 times the current rate?

Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind us about what it means to have Labour in office.
We are told that there may be a Labour Government after the next general election. I will leave it to the electorate to decide, but I have my doubts, because if the electorate want any ideas about a Labour Government, they should just look at the antics of the Leader of the Opposition in the past week alone.
Just last Wednesday, I read in that excellent daily newspaper, Kent Today, a snippet entitled "Blair set to meet the shoppers". It informed its readers:
Labour Leader Tony Blair will meet shoppers in Gravesend when he comes to town on Friday.
The MP is planning a walkabout in the St. George's and Anglesea centres during his visit".
I was rather surprised to read that, because I thought that it was parliamentary courtesy to inform a colleague if one intended to visit his or her constituency. That lack of courtesy is nothing new, however, because the Leader of the Opposition visited my constituency about a year ago and did not advise me in advance. On that occasion, I received an apology from a deputy spin doctor in the right hon. Gentleman's office, who referred to that omission as an "oversight". Well, well, well.
I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition immediately I got the wonderful news that he was showing some interest in Gravesham. I told him that, had he advised me in advance, I could have organised a visit for him. I wrote:


For instance, we might have visited the Enterprise Parks at Springhead and on the Imperial Business Estate where thousands of jobs have been created in recent years under the Enterprise Zone legislation of the Conservative Government (legislation against which the Labour Party voted). We could have visited our highly successful grammar schools and grant maintained schools, all of which are under threat from the Labour Party. Indeed, slightly more time permitting, we could have visited the site of the future Darenth Park Hospital where a brand new General Hospital costing £100 million is to be built, financed by the Private Finance Initiative, or alternatively visited the many farms in Gravesham. Both the hospital and the livelihood of many farm workers have been put at risk recently by the irresponsible scaremongering in the House of Commons by Harriet Harman.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the convention that the names of Members are not mentioned. I know that in the first instance the name was given in a quotation, but the hon. Gentleman should be a little more careful.

Mr. Arnold: I was quoting from a letter; I am fully aware of the conventions of the House.
More important than those invitations, I challenged the Leader of the Opposition to a debate in the very shopping centre that he proposed to visit. I believe that it is far more important for shoppers to be informed of the answers to real questions rather than just given a photo-opportunity handshake.
In the event, the Leader of the Opposition was half an hour late. He did shake hands, but only with the Labour grandees of the local council. He rushed through one of the shopping centres in less than 10 minutes, looking somewhat harassed.
It is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not accept my challenge, because such a debate would have been most interesting. Just yesterday in the Chamber, the Leader of the Opposition had great fun during Prime Minister's questions by proposing a debate on television with the Prime Minister. Why did he not respond to my invitation to a debate in the shopping centre at Gravesend? Indeed, I have still not had a reply to my letter, six days later.
I would have called on the Leader of the Opposition to answer a burning question for the people of Gravesend: quite simply, would he support the PFI for Darenth Park hospital, a major £100 million hospital project? I would have asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether he supported the PFI scheme for that hospital—yes or no. If he had answered yes, he would then have had to give the Opposition health spokesman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), some pretty firm instructions, because she has tried to undermine that project.
In the House recently, the hon. Lady mentioned the existence of a PFI priority list, which she claimed had been leaked from the Treasury, and which categorised projects into an A and B list. She had great fun jeering at me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford when she said that Darenth Park hospital was on the B list, and that therefore it was hardly likely to be developed. I have news for the hon. Lady: that project has attracted four major consortia, which have put in bids. Those applications are so good that two have been selected and invited to tender, and one of those tenders will be accepted. In other words, if the project is on the B list, as the hon. Lady claimed, it is certainly a golden list.
The hon. Lady has made other attacks on the concept of using the PFI for hospital construction. On 13 January she told a health conference at Birmingham:
I don't call it a Private Finance Initiative, I call it a privatisation initiative.
The hostility behind that quotation is clear. If that was not enough to undermine the confidence of bidders to build our hospital under the PFI, she told the House:
Any banker would be unwise to enter into a contract valued at hundreds of millions of pounds with a public sector partner that can be abolished by the Secretary of State".—[Official Report, 12 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 825.]
That hardly instils confidence in the companies that are bidding, but then they are far more intelligent than the hon. Lady, and they have maintained their bids.
I would have liked to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he supports the use of the PFI for Darenth Park hospital. If he were to answer yes, the hon. Member for Peckham should stop undermining our hospital. If he were to answer no, the people of Gravesham and Dartford deserve nothing less than a beautifully framed signed letter from the Opposition Treasury spokesman, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), giving his firm commitment to invest £100 million of Government funds in year one to build that hospital. We would expect nothing less and we would expect a yes or no in support of our hospital.
I can assure the House that the Dartford and Gravesham national health service trust, local people and the local Members of Parliament back the project and are pressing ahead because we want our new district general hospital. It is the best prospect that we have had for many a long year, and it will be delivered under a Conservative Government through the PFI. The construction of that hospital would have a spin-off and release the Gravesend and North Kent hospital for the creation of the community hospital, to which my constituents have looked forward for a long time. That hospital site would be transferred to the Thameslink Healthcare Services NHS trust, which is already working on an £8 million PFI project to bring that about.
What I have tried to make clear this morning is that Conservative policies are working in north-west Kent. They are working despite the sabotage, incompetence and hostility of Labour—in office on Kent county council; and in opposition in the House, where I hope and expect Labour to remain for a very long time.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: I was minded to comment on the unfortunate speech of the hon. Member who, for the time being, represents Basildon, but I am happy now to regard that as a distant memory. I am, however, delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) is resuming his seat alongside me because I now have the opportunity to congratulate him personally on an excellent, elegant and well-judged maiden speech with which I associate myself in general terms and in the particular—his gracious remarks about his predecessor.
I have my own fond memories of my hon. Friend's predecessor's charm, humour, bonhomie and presence and I have my particular reasons for remembering him with much fondness and regret. We were the two classicists on the Labour Benches. It is a little known fact that we


shared a secret—as young teachers we both translated the songs of the Beatles into Latin in separate songbooks. Mine ranged from "Amat te mehercle", which non-latinists might just about recognise as "She loves you, yeah yeah yeah" and "Veni domum Bill Bailey", which needs no translation.
I did not know of my late hon. Friend's service to relations with Portugal, but I knew from close quarters the excellent work that he did for relations with Greece and Cyprus, and it is to a matter of great importance to the people of Cyprus that I wish draw the House's attention today—the people who are still listed as missing since the invasions of 1974. We know the statistics. There are 1,619 names on the list and, if the House will allow me, I shall give a few personal details about several of them because they are not just statistics but individuals.
The following is the evidence of one Lambis Elia from the village of Hartsia:
On 13.9.1974",
after the invasions,
the Turks arrested my two sons, Michael aged 17, and Elia aged 19, and took them to their camp near our village. On the same day I met the Turkish Cypriot, Nazim Ahmet, aged 60, who is a friend of mine"—
that also should be noted—
and I asked him to take me to the Turkish Army Officer. He did take me and the following day on the 14.9.1974, the Turkish Officer allowed me to see my sons for ten minutes. The next day …the Officer allowed me to see them again and this time I was with my wife. We saw them for some time in the Turkish camp where they were being held.
On 16.9.74 around two o'clock in the afternoon a party of the International Red Cross came to our village. I told them about the arrest of my sons and I led them to the area of the Turkish camp. Unfortunately, however, the Turkish Army Officer denied that he was holding any prisoners and did not allow the Red Cross to carry out an investigation.
Since then, nothing has become known about the fate of my two sons".
Andreas Nicodemos, of the village of Trimithi in the occupied Kyrenia district, was a reservist during the invasion. He was taken prisoner and transferred, with others, to Adana prison in Turkey. On 20 or 21 August 1974, he was taken out into the yard, where he heard someone call his name. The person who called him was someone he knew—his co-villager Kyriakos Frixou—who is now missing. They shook hands and spoke but, since then, nothing has been heard of him.
I have here a famous photograph that was developed from film taken by a Turkish journalist who was covering the invasion and was wounded and captured by the Greek national guard. The picture shows some Greek Cypriot prisoners kneeling under armed guard. Five have been identified. I shall read out their names because they are individuals. They are Korellis Antonakis tou Michaeli from Kythrea, Nicolaou Paniccos tou Chrysostomou from Achna, Skordis Christoforos tou Georghiou from Dhali, Papayiannis Ioannis tou Charalambous from Anglandjia and Hadjikyriakos Philippos tou Stephani from Famagusta.
I also have copies of photographs of other missing people, but I shall not read out any more names as that would burden the House. However, I have a photograph that was published in a Turkish publication and shows a visit by the Turkish Red Crescent to a prisoner of war camp. It shows four identifiable individuals alive in prison in Turkey—but they are now missing. I also have two pictures

from a BBC documentary, again taken at Adana prison. They show four individuals who have been identified and who were alive and well but who are now missing.
There are 1,619 missing people, of whom 992 were reservists—prisoners of war caught fighting—but 627 of them were civilians. Of the total, 1,503 were men and 116 women. The sad thing is that, although among the older age groups 315 were over 60 and 241 were between 40 and 60, 1,036 were between 16 and 39—the active miliary age group—and 27, including two girls, were under 16.
There has been much public condemnation of the fact that people who were known to be alive in custody are still posted as missing and their fate is unknown. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe considered the matter in September 1984, as did many other international bodies. It discussed the Verde report, which was endorsed. Mr. Verde wrote:
Enforced disappearance is one of the most serious violations of the human rights safeguarded by international instruments: it infringes virtually all the victims' personal rights and many of the rights of their families. The violations are also contrary to the 1949 Geneva conventions and cannot be justified by special circumstances, whether armed conflict, state of emergency or internal unrest or tension"—
any of which terms accurately describes the situation in Cyprus at that time.
The House will note that the Verde report refers to the rights of the families of missing people. It is on the agony of the families that I want to dwell for a few moments. To understand their agony, we must have a little insight into their southern European, Greek orthodox culture. In that culture, family ties extend widely and deeply. It is often jokingly said that, in Cyprus, everyone is everyone else's cousin—that is the latitudinal family tie.
Longitudinally, it is interesting to note the extent of the use of the patronymic. The endings "-idis", as in Christophides, "-akis" and "-opoulos" are all patronymic endings. It will be noted that the simple genitive case is often used as a surname, as in Georgiou, which means son of George or "George son". This feature is, perhaps, common in other cultures, but people in Cyprus have another interesting custom, which is to pass on Christian names from grandfather to grandson. The son of Charalambous Kotziamanis is a dear friend of a number of us in the House—Nikos Charalambous Kotziamanis—whose eldest son is Charalambous Kotziamanis, and so it will continue.
That family tradition is echoed in the formalised remembrance of the dead. There are services after three days, after 40 days—the Sarandaimeron, which is very important—after three months, after six months, after 12 months and annually thereafter. Connected with that is the importance of the family grave in the ancestral village. Indeed, the very word "cemetery", or koimeterion, means the place where the dead rest or sleep.
The distress felt by the 180,000 refugees is caused not just by the loss of their property, but by the loss of their ancestral villages. One need only observe the multitude of village associations that exist in the London Greek Cypriot community to appreciate that. In such a culture, uncertainty about the fate of loved ones and the denial of the experience of bereavement is particularly painful. Those loved ones are not at rest; people hope against hope for their return, setting places for them at family celebrations such as weddings. Anyone who has observed


a public meeting of refugees cannot have failed to be moved by the sight of old women holding up photographs of those whose fate is still unknown—agnooumeni, or missing people.
That is why the recent pronouncement of the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, was so particularly brutal. He said that the "unknown" were all dead—that the Turkish army had handed them over to Turkish paramilitaries in the aftermath of the invasion of 1974, and that the paramilitaries had put them to death. I am not certain how that can have been done to people who were in prison in Turkey.
It is not clear what Rauf Denktash intended. Did he intend to clear Turkey of responsibility for those people's fate, or simply to close the issue? Whatever his purpose, the attempt failed. If Turkey handed over prisoners of war to paramilitaries, that was wrong, and a violation of international conventions. If Turkey wants to be absolved, it must provide the necessary information. The problem for Turkey is the evidence that I gave in my opening remarks—evidence of the known existence of many of the people involved after the cessation of hostilities.
Rauf Denktash's remarks did not close the issue. They make no difference to the requirement that the fate of the missing people—the fate of as many individuals as is humanly possible—must be revealed to their families, to whom they continue to be dearly loved sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, fathers and sons, or just missing friends.
I shall read a poem by another dear friend of some hon. Members, Michaelis Xenophontos Joannou—son of Xenophon. The poem is entitled "To A Missing Friend".

"Where were you lost my friend
Where do you roam at this hour?
In which dungeon are you kept prisoner
Or have you been buried
In an unknown grave
Without a cross?
'Missing' they said
And they took down all details
Whilst life continued its road.
I always see you, though,
On the football terrace
Standing and smiling at me…
In vain I try to explain
That bitter smile on your face."

The United Kingdom has many interests in the matter—as a guarantor of power, as a member of the Commonwealth and as a country in which many relatives of the missing people have settled, joining the Greek Cypriot community here. Some of the missing people had dual nationality: I am aware of at least one. Earlier this week, I presented my Cyprus (Commission of Enquiry into Missing Persons) Bill, the aim of which is to
establish a Commission of Enquiry to take evidence concerning the whereabouts of certain missing persons and to authorise the provision of assistance in the conduct of any investigations into those matters carried out by the authorities on the island of Cyprus; and for connected purposes.
The Bill's Second Reading is to take place on 12 July, but I have an opportunity today to rehearse briefly the case for the establishment of the commission.
Mine is a modest proposal. I ask for an investigation of the fate of certain missing persons, at the invitation of the Cypriot Government. The Bill offers a framework,

procedures and funds by means of which, after 22 long years, the hopes of the families of the agnooumeni may be vindicated—although, sadly, that is now unlikely—and their fears laid to rest by knowledge of the fate of their loved ones. Painful though that may be, it does not compare with the pain of the present uncertainty.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I, too, want to talk about Cyprus and the role of the United Kingdom Government, the United States and European Governments.
The island has been occupied for more than 21 years. It has been annexed, and United Nations troops are on the green line. When I go there, I try to imagine what it would be like if the same happened in Scotland—if my homeland, my people and my property were taken from me. What would it be like if foreign troops occupied the part of the country to which I belong, and my property was filled with immigrants from Turkey or another foreign power?
The Scots are a proud race—no less proud than the Greeks and even the Turks. We are a warlike nation, just as they are. The British have used us on many occasions to force their policies on other people. The Cypriots, however, have genuinely tried to exercise a peaceful policy, through the United Nations and in other ways, in an attempt to reunify their country. There is a democracy in Cyprus; the Cypriots have even put their political future at stake, repeatedly trying to establish formulas through the United Nations, and holding meetings in New York and elsewhere to suggest to Mr. Denktash ways of returning the annexed territory to a united Cyprus in which people can live in freedom and democracy.
All that has been to no avail, however. There is clearly a connection between Mr. Denktash and Ankara. Much hangs on the attitude of not just the UK Government but the United States, which has considerable influence on the Turkish Government and the proposal that Turkey and Cyprus should become part of the European common market. I hope that the good will and efforts of others will make it clear to Ankara that we cannot stand aside after 21 years and see a divided nation in which UN troops are on guard at all times and people are made refugees in their own country. Many of them have come to the United Kingdom, but they would be delighted to return to their ancestral homes.
The Government are denying their responsibilities. It is all very well to say that the Cypriots must come together, but have our Government seriously analysed the proposals of the democratic Government who are in place in the largest part of the island for the protection of minority groups? I do not believe that the Foreign Office has made any serious efforts. There seems to be a pro-Turkish lobby in the House. I am not pro-Greek; I am pro-democracy, decency and freedom. I want the people of Cyprus to be united once more, as they should be. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and others on bringing the Government's attention to the problem. I do not know how much publicity it will get, but it is certainly an outstanding international problem.
There have been peace negotations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and similar negotiations brought democracy to South Africa after years of apartheid. What is stopping us from negotiating to bring


about the unification and freedom of Cyprus? Turkey and Greece are two great nations with ethnic connections. They have different religious and, perhaps, political views, but if Israelis can get together with Palestinians and if South Africa's people can negotiate to do away with apartheid, anything can happen in this world.
I hope that the UK, which has a vested interest in Cyprus and a responsibility as a partner in efforts to secure peace and unity, will take this matter seriously and that, in the years before the millennium, its priority will be to ensure that Cyprus again becomes a united nation and island under a democratic process. Achievement of that would be a credit to us and to the people who are aiming to secure it.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: I want to pursue a matter that was referred to in the excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), who spoke with depth, feeling and understanding of the problems that face coalfield communities in his constituency. It is important that we work towards creating new jobs, new opportunities and a new future for coalfield communities.
In the past few weeks, British Coal Enterprise has been privatised. That process is now almost complete. When the House resumes after the Easter recess, the enterprise will be in private hands, so it is important that we discuss the matter—perhaps for the last time—today.
The House will remember that British Coal Enterprise was set up as a regeneration agency to attract new jobs to coalfield areas and to retrain former miners. In the financial year just ended, it spent £20 million in coalfield communities. It operates a loan fund that is matched against others to create funding for small business and other companies. It operates workshops in coalfield communities throughout the country and it has been involved in the training and retraining of former miners.
I want to record my thanks and those of many hon. Members on, I think, both sides of the House to British Coal Enterprise, and in particular to its chief executive, Phillip Andrew, and all his staff. I opposed British Coal Enterprise's privatisation, but the job is now done. The agency is being fragmented. The loan fund has been subject to a management buy-out by Coalfield Investments Ltd., which is headed by Bill Furness, British Coal Enterprise's former finance director. The workshops have been sold to a firm called Birkby, which is based in Huddersfield. The training side—the Grosvenor side of the business—has also been the subject of a successful management buy-out.
British Coal Enterprise has been discussed many times in the House. On a number of occasions, Ministers have made commitments that, as part of the sale, the new private sector owners will continue the agency's work in coalfield communities. According to Ministers, under new ownership, British Coal Enterprise will continue to focus on creating jobs, to maintain the loan fund and to offer coalfield communities a new future.
Coalfield communities were therefore extremely surprised and disappointed to learn only yesterday that, out of the 120 staff who work for British Coal Enterprise, 30 are to be made redundant—a 25 per cent. cut in jobs. I understand that further redundancies may be announced

shortly. There is a strange irony in the fact that an agency set up to create new jobs in coalfield areas is now putting people out of work.
My real concern is that commitments—they are on the record—had been given that, under private owners, resources would continue and that, in its new form, British Coal Enterprise would continue to do the job. The bottom line is that, with staff cuts of 25 per cent., it may not be able to do so. Faith has been broken with coalfield communities.
Coalfield communities have a right to know how much the Treasury has gained from the sale of British Coal Enterprise, which was 100 per cent. owned by the public. The proceeds are to go to the Treasury. The sale has been completed. How much money has been gained? Figures of about £20 million to £30 million have been bandied about. Let us have it on the record; let it be acknowledged how much money has gone to the Treasury.
Let the Minister face the argument. The agency was set up to create new jobs in coalfield areas. Why should not the receipts from the sale be put back into coalfield communities, perhaps matching RECHAR funding, to bring new jobs into the area?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth spoke movingly of the problems that face coalfield communities. Hon. Members will remember that, in October 1992, the then President of the Board of Trade announced measures that, in effect, wound up large parts of the coal industry in the United Kingdom. Since then, unemployment nationally has fallen by 17 per cent.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) is here this morning, because he knows better than anyone that, since October 1992, although unemployment nationally has fallen by 17 per cent., in the Mansfield travel-to-work area, which covers his constituency and part of mine, unemployment has fallen by just 7 per cent. and that, in the neighbouring Worksop travel-to-work area, it has hardly fallen at all. The gap between affluent areas and disadvantaged areas such as coalfield communities is widening, which is a recipe for social disaster.
The nation owes a debt to the coal industry, to the people who worked in it and to coalfield communities. Coalfield communities know that they need a new future and that they must find that future through their own efforts. They want investment in infrastructure, in workshops and in companies, but especially investment that will create a new future.
Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will reconsider the issues that surround British Coal Enterprise. I hope that he will reiterate the commitment that Ministers have given many times in the House that, under private ownership, British Coal Enterprise's successor companies will continue to meet coalfield communities' needs. I hope that he will consider how much money has been raised from the sale of British Coal Enterprise, whether it is £20 million or £30 million, and give a commitment today that the money will be spent on creating the new jobs and the new future that is so badly needed in many of our neighbourhoods and towns.

Mr. Alan Meale: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) for his kind remarks. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for


Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) and wish him well in his career. I certainly think that he will do an excellent job. Those who have listened to his speech—or who will read it in Hansard—will have learnt much about the man and about what he will, I hope, do in his time in Parliament. If he can do half as well as his two immediate predecessors, he will do a magnificent job.
I also remember Derek Enright, who was a marvellous politician and a marvellous friend. I also remember his predecessor, George Buckley, who was a dear friend to many of us in the Chamber and a sterling worker on behalf of the coalfield communities that he represented. Sadly, both men died serving their community and the state. I wish my hon. Friend well in his endeavours. I hope to God that the same fate does not befall him while he is a Member of the House. I hope that he has a long and arduous time in this place, but that he enjoys good health in his old age in retirement.
Like my hon. Friends the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), I, too, want to raise the question of Cyprus today. It is a scandal that we, as a guarantor power and as signatory to a number of conventions in relation to Cyprus, have not fulfilled our responsibilities to that great allied nation. Here we are, yet again, 21 years after an illegal invasion that resulted in the illegal occupation which continues today, with tens of thousands of troops illegally occupying one third of the sovereign island of Cyprus. That is a disgrace.
I want to consider other disgraceful areas where we have failed to exert sufficient pressure to try to help this ally. Since 1974, 1,619 people are still missing, many of whom can now be presumed dead because of the age at which they were taken prisoner—nearly all in uniform, I may add, under the terms of the Geneva convention. But young women and girls and one four-year-old child also disappeared during that time. I know of that child, having considered the history of his case. President Klerides of Cyprus knew all about that case because, at the time of the illegal invasion, he was acting President of the island. Mr. Dentkash, who remains the leader of the Turkish Cypriot illegal regime in the north, was the acting President of that illegal regime. On many occasions, that young child was about to be handed over, but it never actually happened. His case typifies nearly all the cases of the missing 1,619.
Not just one or two cases of joint citizenship are involved. There are hundreds of cases of people who had British citizenship, and nearly all those involved have relatives who are British citizens. It is a scandal that we have not tackled the issue head on, in an attempt to discover the whereabouts of those missing people, or at least to notify relatives of exactly what happened. If there are any remains, they should be returned to the relatives.
One reason why we should tackle this international issue head on is Britain's historical relationship with Cyprus. At no time within its recent history has Cyprus let Britain down. I am amazed that it has not, when one considers some of the events in which we have been involved with that nation and the ways in which it has been treated by us.
During world war one, tens of thousands of Cypriots stepped forward to fight with the allies. On day one of world war two, 42,000 of the 48,000 eligible adults in Cyprus volunteered to fight fascism in Europe, and thousands of them died in the process.
I am not ashamed to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian that I am pro-Greek. I am pro-Greek because Greece, like Britain, is a member of the European Community. I do not step away from that, because I also recall what Greece gave during the second world war. For the first two years, it was not officially in it, but on day one it gave the whole of its merchant fleet to the allies. In the process, during those first two years, thousands of lives and ships were lost. It is an historic fact that, if Greece had not entered the war and had not taken on the fascist forces of Germany at that time, the war could have been lost.

Mr. O'Hara: Will my hon. Friend also remark on the fact that for six months, between 28 October 1940 and the occupation of Athens in April 1941, Greece alone was fighting with the United Kingdom against the fascists?

Mr. Meale: I thank my hon. Friend. We should remind ourselves of those facts and of what side Turkey was on during that period. It certainly was not the British side.
When I think about the illegal occupation of Cyprus, I also remember Turkey's human rights record, which is the most abominable in Europe. I wonder why we have stepped back from Cyprus and have not given it the support that it has given us. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence will realise that it is because we are being led by United States foreign policy. That is the reality.
Many of us will wonder why the United States should be involved in all this. Among the 1,619 missing people are a number of American citizens. Yet the United States has failed to fight in a realistic and honourable way to discover the whereabouts of those people, to obtain their release or to have their remains returned. I just wish that the United States would treat its missing people in Cyprus as seriously as it treated its missing people in a more recent confrontation in Vietnam.
But this is about United States foreign policy and about Britain being led by the nose by the United States. Many reasons have been given for that. One is that America has a number of missile bases in Turkey which, in the old days, pointed towards the old Soviet bloc. That wall has now come down and instead, as I understand it, the Americans have switched their missiles round slightly, aiming them towards the middle east in order to try to provide stability there. We all know how, during the Kuwait war, Turkey was used by American forces in order to send aircraft and troops against Iraq.
But the truth is that this is not really about missile bases. If it was, the Americans could have them in Cyprus or on aircraft carriers or submarines in the Mediterranean. This is about trade, and a particular kind of trade-oil and gas. We all know that 72 per cent. of the world's known resources of oil and gas are situated in that part of the world, particularly in Turkey. It is about that, and about American trade and foreign policy, which seeks to get through the door of the old Soviet states and to trade there, to capitalise on the gas and oil reserves and to use that as a base to enter Europe and to trade with the third world—Africa, India and all the rest.
Any economist with any sense who has read Lipsey will know that the only way in which the world will be able to get out of the recession in which it now finds itself is to trade out of it, and the most open market for that resides in the third world and, in particular, in Africa.
We need to start to live up to our responsibilities. Sadly, we have let down the people of Cyprus. This is a matter of common sense and it is in Britain's interests. Cyprus represents, as a full partner in Europe and as an ally of Britain, many advantages. The first is its role in trade with the third world, to which I referred earlier. Cyprus has an excellent record, particularly with African nations, and certainly with the old eastern bloc. It now has its own stock exchange, which is magnificently run, and an offshore banking system that is second to none. Its geographical location offers Europe the opportunity of a telecommunications bank for Europe that would be the envy of the world. Last but not least, it has the second largest shipping fleet in the world, which, if joined with that of Greece, would give us a monopoly on world shipping. If we are to trade, we need that base.
Madam Speaker, it has been kind of you to allow me to address the House today on Cyprus. I say that Britain should live up to its responsibility. It should demand of Turkey and of the illegal regime that they get round the negotiating table and, as a precondition to any movement, notify the United Nations missing persons committee of the whereabouts of the missing persons. Then we could go on to free the island, make it a full partner in Europe and be an ally to it, as it has been to us.

12 noon

Mr. Tony Banks: I associate myself with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I also describe myself as pro-Greek. Indeed, I was made an honorary citizen of the island of Simi, which is just a few kilometres from the shores of Turkey. Those of us who consider ourselves pro-Greek have a responsibility to ensure that the Greeks and Turks talk to each other. Political solutions need to be found, and we must do all that we can to encourage the search for them. At one stage I thought that I would have to pack my tin hat along with my suntan cream and sunglasses when I went to Simi, given the increasing tension between Greece and Turkey.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) will make an excellent Member of Parliament, although he has a lot to live up to. I know that he knows that as well as anyone. Derek Enright was a most cultured, civilised and decent human being, and we all miss him enormously.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is not in his place, but I know that he will read Hansard, if only to read his own speech. I am sorry that he felt that I was being nasty to him. I should like to say that he played a great part in assisting the London borough of Newham and the private and public sectors on the location of the second international station at Stratford. It was just a little bit of uncustomary bile on my part that led me to say those unkind, ruthless and altogether accurate things that I said about him.
I regret that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) criticised my good friend Mark Thomas, who does the excellent programme on Channel 4, "The Comedy Product". Anyone who revealed, as Mark did, the

underwear secrets of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) deserves a great tribute from the nation. When he revealed to a horrified nation the state of the hon. Gentleman's underpants, he did something that we all should be pleased he did. The underpants from hell is the only way I can describe them. No doubt he will live to regret the interview that he gave to Mr. Thomas.
I should like to say a few words before the Easter recess about bovine spongiform encephalopathy or mad cow disease. Perhaps later this afternoon the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement about the failure of the European Union to lift the ban on British beef, even though thousands of cattle are to be slaughtered and more will be following on a selective basis.
The thing that I deeply regret is that the taxpayer will pick up the bill for all this. There is no such thing as a free lunch, particularly within the European Union. Although 70 per cent. of the cost of the slaughter policy will come from Europe, we contribute to the EU budget. So the money might come indirectly, but it will still come from the taxpayer. There is something wrong here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) talked about the destruction of the coalfield communities. When the arguments on that were raised in the House, we were told that it was a matter of market forces. Market forces dictated that there was no longer a demand for coal and the miners would just have to pack up from the pits, leave their helmets and lamps behind, and go somewhere else.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: No. I cannot give way; I do not have time.
A completely different solution is advanced whenever the farmers unions are involved. I know that they play a vital role in the economy, but farmers in this country always get special treatment. The miners are told that it is the market, but we have to make special provisions for the farmers. Some farmers and those who work on farms or in the beef industry are entitled to special provision, but I do not see why the taxpayers should pick up the tab for farmers who knowingly fed their cattle, which are ruminants and herbivores, animal protein foodstuffs. One does not need to be a scientist or wear a white coat—a few Members in the House ought to be wearing white coats, but not because they are scientists—to realise that it is obvious that, if we start grotesquely interfering with nature, there will be a price to pay. The taxpayer is expected to pay that price.
If we are going to shoot hormones into cattle to tenderise meat, genetically engineer animals to produce food for us, and interfere with the natural growth of fruit and vegetables, we shall do things to ourselves as well as to nature. We are poisoning ourselves. One does not need to be an expert to work out that there will be consequences.
I want to know whom we are going to sue. Someone ought to be arraigned in a public dock and accused. We can accuse the Government, but we could certainly also accuse the cattle cake manufacturers. After all, those who produce pharmaceutical products, tobacco companies and the manufacturers of asbestos can be sued for endangering the health of the nation. So why


should not those who have endangered the health of the nation through BSE now be sued? Everyone is walking away. No one is guilty. No one is at fault. No one is to blame. But the taxpayer has to pick up the bill in the end.
I have been a vegetarian for some years now, but unfortunately not long enough to have escaped the incubation period of mad cow disease in humans. So I am probably as potentially mad as anyone else in the Chamber.

Mr. Trickett: No sympathy.

Mr. Banks: I am not looking for sympathy. Some people feel that I contracted mad cow disease an awful long time ago, but that is neither here nor there.
What I want to know now is how I and other vegetarians can avoid beef products. It is not easy. All right, I do not go out and buy beef. That is the easy part. It is where beef products go into the food chain elsewhere—where they are hidden—that gives me room for concern. For example, skin, bones, ligaments and tendons are boiled up to make gelatine, which is used as a gelling or thickening agent in many products, including some, if not all, yoghurts, ice creams, cakes, biscuits, sweets, mints, liquorice allsorts, jelly beans, wine gums, jelly, sausages, aspic in pork pies and coating for vitamin pills.
In order to make sure that I stay healthy long enough to see the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) go to his inevitable political doom, I take vitamin tablets. I now find that I am taking vitamin tablets that contain beef products. So I am thinking, "Ha ha, I am not going to go mad like the rest of them. I am okay. I am taking vitamin tablets." The fact is that I am still doing exactly what other people are doing. I am taking potentially infected products into my system without knowing it. If I want to commit suicide, I want to do it knowingly. I do not want to do it by accident. We need far more information and labelling to tell us what goes into food products.
When I have called in the House for various boycotts of nasty products because of the treatment of animals, the ministerial response has always been that it is up to the consumers to decide. Consumer choice is what it is all about. I do not disagree with consumer choice, but to exercise choice, we need information. We do not get enough information about what goes on.
At the base of the problem lies the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for food protection as well as for food production. That raises irreconcilable conflicts, as is shown by BSE. We must split the two functions. I want to think that someone is looking after my interests as a consumer rather than sacrificing them in the interests of the producer.
We must all learn from what has happened. My lesson is that I am far from being safe in following a vegetarian diet because I do not know enough about what goes into the foods, pills, tablets and potions that I take to be able to make speeches here. I shall end because I have been told to do so.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I would not dream of telling my hon. Friend to end, but I am glad that he sat down when he did because it gives me the chance to reply to the debate.
I have just received a message from the Leader of the House saying that he has been delayed in Cabinet in respect of the Agriculture Council. I am sure that that will be of especial interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), because the issues he raised are significant and are causing much concern. I agree that there must be limits on how far we interfere with nature. On his points about what happened in Brussels overnight, I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us that there will be a statement to the House on that today.
It would also be appropriate to have a statement about the Cabinet's decision on a referendum on a single currency. I understand from my hon. Friends that they can read the outcome of the Cabinet meeting on Teletext—which is the normal way of finding out things—although I suppose that for the most part, we read it in this morning's papers, where such things are reported in advance.
I am sure that the Leader of the House regrets his absence from the Chamber; we understand why it is necessary. He will especially regret missing the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett). I am pleased, as a fellow Yorkshire Member, to be able to congratulate him from the Front Bench on his contribution. Those of us who knew him before he came into the House, and knew the impact that he made on Leeds city council, had high expectations of him, which he has met today. I am sure that his reputation for directness, good humour and taking a practical approach to problems will stand him in good stead.
He will appreciate both the compliments that have been paid to him and the heartfelt compliments that were paid to his predecessor, Derek Enright. All hon. Members had a great deal of respect and fondness for Derek. He would appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) intends to maintain his tradition as a classicist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth said that Derek Enright had a real presence in the Chamber. On occasion, that caused the Chair some concern. I noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend was careful to compliment—rightly—your colleague the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. He is already working out how this place works, and I am sure that he has put in some good preparation for trying to catch the Chair's eye to speak again later today. We congratulate him on his performance and good humour. The House welcomes his contribution and his concerns about the coalfield community that he represents and the disasters that have happened to it, the health service and the other local constituency matters that he will, I am sure, raise from time to time.
It is always difficult to reply when hon. Members have spoken on a wide range of subjects. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who has a reputation of using these debates to good effect, reminded us, as he did at Christmas, of the difficulties that his constituents face because of the pressures on St. George's hospital. Many of us will know from our constituency experience that our constituents often say that a hospital and its staff


are great, but that the pressures on them are too great for them to be able to cope in the way that they would like. It is useful to have these debates where such issues can be raised, so that Ministers are left in no doubt about the concerns of our constituents.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to violence on television and video. As a parent of two young children, I share his concerns. He spoke at some length about the V-chip. I do not reject the idea that it could be a useful tool, but we should not oversell the idea as the solution to the problem. The difficulties are more complex than that. As parents, we have significant responsibilities for what our children watch.
The current hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) was at times amusing, although not always intentionally so. His tirade against his local authority was to some extent matched by that of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). He is in some difficulty when he criticises Basildon and mentions a headline that said that Basildon schools were not good enough for the local Member of Parliament. He has already decided that Basildon is not a good enough constituency for him, so he should be careful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) raised serious and frightening issues, although he raised them responsibly, about volatile organic compounds. He said that he had given the Leader of the House warning that he would raise the matter. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say what the Government intend to do to make up the backlog, given that they are not on target to meet the requirements for air quality. I know that last year was difficult, but people with asthma and other respiratory diseases are anxious. This would be a good time to update the House on the Government's air quality strategy. I understand what my hon. Friend said about postcodes and the way in which they are used, and sometimes misused, for insurance ratings. Perhaps the Minister will answer those points.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) raised a small but significant problem that affects constituents. He made good use of his time, as did the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who talked about the pyramid selling of business club membership. I have not heard of that device for getting money out of people, although I am aware of previous concerns about pyramid selling in general. I hope that his warnings will be heeded.
The hon. Member for Gravesham adopted an approach that is common among Conservative Members—"Don't blame us, we're only the Government." In recent weeks, local authorities have been blamed for half the country's problems and the European Community for the other half. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has been blamed for the Scott report and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) for BSE. The public must sometimes wonder why we want to be in power. Why do we want to sit on the Government Benches, if we have so much power and influence when we are in opposition? Passing the buck has to stop somewhere, and the public have rumbled what the Government are all about.
Three of my hon. Friends used this morning to raise the serious issue of Cyprus, and did so in a way that silenced the House and made everyone present listen with great attention to the tragic stories. They were right to give us

salutary reminders of the personal hardship caused by the situation there. I hope that attention is drawn to the problems that they raised so responsibly. I am sure that their comments will be taken on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) raised an important constituency matter, which also affects other people within his region and in Yorkshire—British Coal Enterprise. His arguments in favour of such activities, which can help bring investment, help small businesses and help in the retraining of people who have lost their livelihoods, ought to be heeded by the Government, because there is so much insecurity that, if such enterprises can bring some hope, they deserve support.
We have had a useful morning, and I hope that the Minister will take on board many of the constructive suggestions made by my hon. Friends.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): I must begin by passing on the apologies of the Leader of the House, who had hoped to be here to respond. Indeed, that was the basis on which he invited me to sit on the Front Bench for an hour while he was away in Cabinet. Sadly, things have not worked out like that, and I have to stand in for him. He is sorry that he has not been able to return to the House, and I shall, of course, draw to his attention all the points made in the debate. If I am not able to deal with them in the few minutes remaining, I shall ensure that the relevant Ministers are made aware of them.
The highlight of this morning's debate was the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett). I congratulate him on that speech. He is very welcome in the House. We remember his predecessor fondly—particularly his knowledge of the classics. It was interesting to discover that Geoffrey Boycott—a man whom we admire for his political loyalties as much as for his cricketing skills—was brought up in Hemsworth. We look forward to more contributions from the hon. Gentleman in the months and years to come.
We also heard a conspicuously interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is widely respected on both sides of the House because of his concern for a series of moral issues that affect the quality of life in our country today. He wanted to draw the attention of the House to V-chips. The Government are considering the implications of the V-chip carefully and are in consultation with broadcasters, regulatory bodies, viewers and other interested parties. It is undoubtedly an interesting and promising new development, but some technological and practical issues surround it, which still need to be tackled. It was useful that the hon. Gentleman raised that issue today, however.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the video of "Natural Born Killers". I am sure that many hon. Members view with enormous distaste and dismay some of the videos and films that are now available, but the British Board of Film Classification is an independent body—the Government have no powers to intervene in its decisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) made some telling points about Essex county council and Havering council in his speech. The third subject that he


raised was the importance of religious education in schools. Early-day motion 715 is before the House at the moment and deals with that subject.
I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House were shocked by the remarks of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who apparently has said that in an ideal world there would be no religious state schools and that his party would put a stop to the daily act of worship, in an attempt to encourage all children to be educated together. That is not a remark that many hon. Members would agree with and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was right to draw it to the attention of the House.
The most extraordinary scene then followed. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) tried to tell the House that that remark did not mean what it appeared to mean and, as soon as he sat down, his hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill stood up to confirm that it indeed meant what we thought it had meant all along. That interesting internal debate among the Liberal Democrats was clearly won by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.
We heard a variety of other important contributions today. Sadly, I missed the opening speech of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who mentioned the position at St. George's hospital. The hospital is taking action in collaboration with its purchasers and other trusts to manage the increased demand that we recognise is occurring in emergency admissions. By good fortune, I see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), sitting on the Front Bench. I shall ensure that that Department is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned postcodes and volatile organic compounds in his speech—two subjects that do not, perhaps, sit naturally together in one speech—and the shadow Leader of the House pressed me to deal with air pollution and volatile organic compounds. I can assure the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that, despite the postponement of deadlines for certain sectors as regards such compounds, which was announced last

June, the Government are steadfast in sticking to their commitment to reduce by 1999 volatile organic compound emissions by 30 per cent. compared with the level in 1988.
Sadly, I have only a few minutes left and there is not time to go through all the subjects raised by other hon. Members. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in his place. He made some pertinent remarks about the private finance initiative, giving a good example of how it can benefit patients locally and raise standards in the health service—points that were well taken. I shall ensure that his remarks about the Kent county council highway programme are drawn to the attention of the Minister responsible for local roads at the Department of Transport.
Cyprus was mentioned in a series of speeches—particularly the people who have been missing since the Turkish invasion, and human rights concerns. Here, everyone accepts that, because of Britain's special historic role in that unhappy country, we must do everything we can to move towards a solution of the difficult problems on the island. I was impressed by the knowledge displayed by the Labour Members who spoke on the subject. When I did some research, it was clear to me why they had such expertise. I found that the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) visited Cyprus on several occasions in 1995—in August, in September, and again in October—as did the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), doubtless to research in greater detail the points that they made today.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) raised the question of the future of British Coal Enterprise, and I shall draw his points to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. The difficulties of British Coal Field Investments Ltd. should not obscure the fact that, generally, the industry is doing well and that the privatisation of coal has been a success. I am told that British Coal Enterprise is continuing discussions with English Partnerships on the transfer of a package of some 80 sites for major regeneration projects.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish you a happy break over Easter—I know that we are not finished yet, but the three-hour debate is almost over. I wish all hon. Members a refreshing Easter break. I look forward to returning to this place reinvigorated the week after next.

Health Services (Wakefield)

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise, once again, concerns about the provision of health care in the Wakefield metropolitan district. I have calculated that, within the past five months, this is the seventh occasion on which I have felt it necessary to raise these concerns in the Chamber. I know that my anxieties are shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse) and for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), who made his maiden speech this morning. I apologised to him earlier for not being present during his speech. I know that he will make his mark in the Chamber in the years to come. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is unable to be here today—within the past fortnight he has spoken about his worries about the redevelopment of Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield, and he shares many of the concerns that I shall raise now.
I have asked for this debate because my constituents—and, I suspect, the people of the Wakefield district as a whole—are bewildered about and increasingly angry at the uncertainties and crises that seem to underpin health provision in our area. The record of the internal market, since its introduction in Wakefield following the 1990 legislation, has been one of unfulfilled promises, contradictions and U-turns. I am not making a political point. As the Under-Secretary of State for Health will be aware, it is impossible to find any trace of a clear strategic policy direction in local health care because those responsible have found the task of making the market work in Wakefield completely impossible.
I make it absolutely clear that I do not blame the local management for this problem—it has been landed with a situation that is totally beyond its control. As the Minister knows, there has been a series of events over the past two years, in particular, that have given local people and their elected representatives real cause for concern about the future of vital health services in our area. The transfer of the regional neurosurgery specialism from Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield, to Leeds marked the start of a wholesale series of threats to key provisions which have been available in Wakefield over a long period.
I have previously said that what constituted a raid by a larger trust on a smaller trust suggested further developments to come, with my constituents and those of my colleagues increasingly being expected to travel to Leeds and elsewhere for care that was previously on their doorsteps. The neurosurgery episode was particularly worrying. While we have become accustomed to the opinions of local people being disregarded time after time in what are called public consultation processes concerning closures or changes of use, the experience on this occasion was worse than usual.
Before the consultation period had ended, Wakefield health authority conceded the transfer of the service, despite there being not one voice in support of the proposal in the Wakefield area. I believe that some sort of deal was done whereby Pinderfields was assured of the provision of a centre of excellence in rehabilitation and a chair in rehabilitation in return—this is recorded in minute 71 of the Yorkshire regional health authority minutes of 8 March 1994. More than two years on, there is no sign of

this centre or of the chair. Is it any wonder that Wakefield community health council stated in a letter to the Secretary of State dated 6 March:
The public of Wakefield and members of the Community Health Council have lost faith in the honesty and integrity of senior regional managers, and would question most strongly the validity of holding public consultation exercises"?
Those are strong words from a body of people who have learnt the bitter lesson that they have been far too trusting in the past about assurances given during consultations on closures or change of use. I felt that the CHC was wrong to accept the closure of the Manygates maternity hospital in my constituency following a consultation procedure in 1991. However, it did so on the basis of clear assurances on the provision of a purpose-built maternity unit on the Pinderfields site. Not only has that never materialised but, as I shall mention in a few moments, serious consideration has been given to the complete closure of the maternity unit at Pinderfields.
The Minister will be aware that, for some time, the health authority has been concerned about the viability of having two acute trusts in the Wakefield metropolitan district. Nearly three years ago, the authority launched a discussion paper proposing moves towards one trust. That proposal was quietly dropped after strong local opposition, obviously based on fears that it would result in a rationalisation of services at the current district hospital at Pinderfields in Wakefield and at the Pontefract general infirmary.
Just over a year ago, the then chair of Wakefield health authority, Mr. Brian Hayward, told me that the authority was seriously considering closing both Pinderfields hospital and Pontefract general infirmary, and moving the entire district's services to a new site somewhere geographically between the two. That came as something of a surprise to the chair and to the then chief executive of the Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust who, at that time, were well on the way with a detailed proposal for a major redevelopment of the Pinderfields site through a private finance initiative bid. The left hand had no idea what the right hand was doing on that occasion, but this has been par for the course in recent years in our area.
Subsequently, the proposal was quietly buried and we were advised that services would continue to be provided from the two separate sites by the two acute trusts. However, the latest proposal to emerge is, once again, the idea of one combined acute trust. Last month, the Pinderfields and the Pontefract trusts produced what was termed a formal expression of interest in making an application for approval for a trust merger. Although the proposal has yet to be put out for so-called public consultation, I understand that the Northern and Yorkshire region has given approval and that the chair and the chief executive of the new body are already known. By the time the public are supposed to have a say on the proposal. it will be more or less up and running.
The merger proposal document is the clearest admission yet that the encouragement of competition between health providers is wasteful and counter-productive. It speaks of the merger proposal reinforcing
The commitment to partnership rather than competition on the part of both Trusts.
It flags up the possibility of potential partnerships with other acute providers in West Yorkshire, where that achieves a greater critical mass of population.


Such possibilities and what the document terms the "reconfiguration" of acute services across the district have raised serious worries about the continued availability of a range of services at both Pinderfields and Pontefract.
I want to make absolutely clear my wish to see existing services retained at Pontefract general infirmary as well as at Pinderfields. I have no desire to see services in Wakefield retained at the expense of those in Pontefract. It would be totally unreasonable to expect constituents in either the east or the west of the Wakefield metropolitan district to travel to the other end for basic services currently available in their own localities—but that is what is likely to happen as a direct consequence of the proposed merger.
The proposal to transfer maternity provision from Pinderfields hospital to Pontefract general infirmary is already being seriously considered. It flies in the face of clear assurances given to the public when Manygates maternity hospital closed. I have the consultation documents here for the Minister to see if he wishes to check that point.
With the debate concentrating on the critical mass issue, we are being told that maternity units with fewer than 2,000 deliveries per annum are no longer viable. As I reminded the health authority chair-elect—if that is the term for someone unelected—and the health authority chief executive last week, such a measure of viability would be contrary to the findings of the Health Select Committee maternity inquiry, the so-called Winterton report. I served on the Select Committee during that inquiry and I understood that the Government subscribed almost totally to its central tenets in relation to the size of units and clinical intervention.
I am not closing my mind to a reshaping of maternity, gynaecological and obstetric provision in my area, but I am saying that it is not on for women and their families to have to travel to either end of the district to a single maternity unit. Such a proposal would be fought in every way possible, as will other suggestions leading to the loss of long-standing services at either Pinderfields hospital or Pontefract general infirmary.
The district health authority's problems in trying to make sense of the internal market, have been made much worse by two other factors—the change in the national funding formula and the joker in the pack, GP fundholding. I previously pointed out that Wakefield health authority has been deemed the most overfunded authority in the new Northern and Yorkshire region since the new criteria were introduced. In the 1996…97 financial year—the current financial year—it is deemed to be more than £4.5 million overfunded because the new formula uses some questionable and dubious criteria.
For example, the market forces factor, under which we lose substantially, assumes lower pay rates in the Wakefield area when national pay rates for nursing staff are rightly still the norm. The population formula relating to age takes no account of the fact that people who die younger, as happens to be the case in the Wakefield area, require similar types of health care in their later years. It takes no account of the fact that hospitalisation rates per thousand in acute specialties, at 198 and 192 for Pontefract and Wakefield respectively, are considerably higher than the 160 average

for England. The Minister must address the fact that the new formula markedly worsens an already critical position in the health services in Wakefield. I hope that he will consider that point in detail.
I hope that the Minister will also consider the impact of GP fundholding on Wakefield's problems. He will appreciate that the surpluses recorded by fundholders in the previous financial year were in marked contrast to the serious difficulties facing non-fundholding GPs trying to obtain hospital treatment for their patients.
I have said before, and I think we have proved conclusively in Wakefield, that a two-tier system is operating whereby patients of non-fundholders are disadvantaged. It is more than a little galling for non-fundholding GPs to have to struggle desperately to gain access to such treatment because of resourcing problems when local fundholders are so flush with money that they are building swimming pools with their surpluses. It does not go down well with the thousands of people who have campaigned to retain Snapethorpe hospital in Wakefield and were told that its recuperative facilities were no longer needed to find the new GP fundholding total purchasing project proposing to use private nursing homes instead of the NHS for the same purpose. Yet another so-called consultation process is proved to have been a charade.
Such episodes leave my constituents, and those of my hon. Friends who represent the Wakefield metropolitan district, angry and resentful about the treatment of their NHS by the Government. Bearing in mind the fact that they fund the NHS, are they not entitled to know why the chief executive of the Pinderfields trust literally disappeared slightly more than three weeks ago? Are they not entitled to know whether, as I suspect, Mr. Peter Ward, the gentleman concerned, was a scapegoat for some of these wider problems, most of which I believe were way beyond his personal control?
I conclude by reminding the Minister what the Secretary of State for Health said in his speech to the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee on 4 March 1996. He made it clear that the Government's policy was to ensure that health services were available to patients in their local communities. The logical outcome of merger proposals in Wakefield, forced on health managers by the serious problems that I have outlined, is the opposite of the objective set out less than a month ago by the Secretary of State.
If local health services in local communities is Government policy, I hope that the Minister will today undertake to intervene in Wakefield to prevent proposals of the type I have outlined, which will undoubtedly arise from the trust merger process.

Mr. Jon Trickett: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) about a number of matters. In a recent meeting between the Members of Parliament for the Wakefield area and executives of several organisations associated with health service provision in the Wakefield area, it became clear to us that there had been a series of secret meetings of various types in Wakefield, at Quarry house in Leeds and probably in London about the future of health care


provision in the Wakefield area. It is also clear that decisions were well advanced in terms of an apparently urgent desire to bring about a fusion of the two trusts in the area.
It was also apparent that decisions had been taken about the personalities—names were known—of the putative chair and chief executive of the new trust. We were told that there would be a public consultation exercise, but it is not due to start until about July and will run through the summer. That is often a convenient time for such public consultation exercises, as many people are preoccupied taking annual leave and vacations, and so on.
We felt that we had been presented with a fait accompli and that we, as elected representatives for the area, had been excluded from the decision-making process. Not many days later, we received through the post documents indicating the early proposals to unify the trust. The documents we received—I have a copy in my hand—a formal expression of interest, are only part of a series of documents that have not yet seen the light of day, proposing the change in the health service arrangements in the Wakefield area.
We were told that it is intended to reduce what is called "duplication of services" and bring about a "centralisation of services" on one site or the other. My hon. Friends and I representing the Wakefield area feel that services will be lost to communities and removed elsewhere in the district or perhaps further afield, and that proper decisions have already been taken about that. I am worried about that and about the way in which the facts have emerged. I am also worried that health service managers in the area appear preoccupied with institutional change, perhaps at the expense of clinical concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield mentioned maternity care. I have in my possession a worrying document, a review of the case of a constituent, which I do not wish to go through in detail now; the Minister may be aware of it. It makes it clear that there are clinical, technical and managerial problems with paediatric care at Pontefract hospital yet, as I understand it, it has been proposed that there be an amalgamation and possibly a concentration of those services at Pontefract.
Consultant paediatricians considering the service in Pontefract have said that they have
concerns about the overall staffing structure and establishment in the paediatric department".
They note that there are only three hospital-based consultant paediatricians and only one recently appointed community paediatrician. They say that
there is no continuous safety net cover of an experienced resident paediatrician in Pontefract.
They say:
At the present time, the safety net cover is provided by a Registrar and staff-grade doctor and"—
this is the important part of the sentence—
for over 50 per cent. of the time there is no safety net provision available.
They continue:
The overall staffing levels are inadequate to provide a fully comprehensive children's service to a population of this size, with 200,000 people, 2,300 births and 1,900 acute paediatric admissions per year…The absence of a continuous safety net cover does not allow high dependency or intensive care work to be undertaken, and yet we understand that this still takes place on occasion.
The events to which the document refers—I hope to take up the matter with the Minister privately in due course—took place more than two years ago. According to the report that was published only last week, little seems to have been done to improve the situation. However, the local health service has employed highly paid and highly skilled professional managers to organise the planned merger, whose objectives have to do with private capital. The document refers to
the need to convince the private sector to reinforce to potential private sector partners the commitment to partnership rather than to clinical care".
We are seeking an early assurance that those discussions will cease and that an appropriate public consultation exercise will commence. In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will assure me that the eight recommendations of the consultant paediatricians in the report will be implemented immediately.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I congratulate him on, once again, securing time to debate the important subject of health services in the Wakefield metropolitan district. This is the seventh time in five months that he has raised the subject, which reveals his assiduity.
I have noted also the concerns, which the hon. Member mentioned, of the hon. Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). I welcome the second speech of the day from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), who I gather made a very good maiden speech. I noted his comments about Pontefract and paediatric care.
The hon. Member for Wakefield raised a number of points, and claimed that general practitioner fundholding in Wakefield had resulted in a two-tier system. He referred to increased resources for the national health service in Wakefield, and he and the hon. Member for Hemsworth expressed concern about the possible merger of the two acute trusts in the Wakefield area—the Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust and the Pontefract Hospitals NHS trust. They questioned whether such a merger would be truly in the interests of patients and of improved health services.
The hon. Member for Wakefield also mentioned maternity services. I acknowledge his local concerns and those of Wakefield metropolitan district council. As he knows, I can claim a little local knowledge: although I am a Lancastrian, I had the good sense to be educated in Yorkshire, at Silcoates school, Wakefield. I therefore know a little about both Pinderfields and Pontefract hospitals.
The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about the resignation of the chief executive of Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust, Mr. Peter Ward. I stress that that is a matter for the chairman and the board of Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust, but I shall say more about Pinderfields later.
I shall deal first with resources. In May last year, the hon. Gentleman expressed concern in the House to my predecessor, the present Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville)—about the fact that


health resources for Wakefield health authority and Wakefield metropolitan district were being cut. For the 1996–97 financial year, which has just commenced, the allocation for Wakefield health authority is just more than £140 million—a cash increase of £4.3 million, or 3.2 per cent. It is also an increase in real terms.
The resources that Wakefield health authority will receive this year include, as in the previous financial year, an increase in both cash and real terms. It is wrong to suggest that, because Wakefield is a certain percentage above its weighted capitation target, there may be a cut next year or in any succeeding year. Real growth in health resources will probably continue in the years to come. If so, Wakefield will continue to receive more resources in real terms. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about market forces, and I assure him that those elements of the capitation formula are kept under review.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to so-called two-tier services and expressed concern about the way in which the undoubted success of GP fundholding is impacting on patients in Wakefield. I assure him, once again, that there is no question of a two-tier service. We stand by our agreement with the medical profession: all emergencies are seen immediately and all urgent cases that cannot be seen immediately are placed on common waiting lists.
There will always be some variation in waiting times for non-urgent treatment between health authorities, as well as between health authorities and fundholders, because different purchasers set different priorities according to their assessment of local need within the national patients charter guarantees and informed by patients' wishes. It is open to health care purchasers to negotiate the best contracts possible on their patients' behalf. Many fundholders use efficiency savings to fund more hospital services for the benefit of patients of all local GPs. Having a range of purchasers stimulates innovation and the delivery of care for the benefit of all patients.
The NHS executive has followed up cases of suggested two-tierism, which have invariably proved to be cases of fundholders making use of spare capacity, purchasing more services and making more resources available. That benefits all patients. Fundholding is achieving not a two-tier system, but an improved health system. We want our services to be based on the standards achieved by the best, not the worst.
As recently as last Monday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health visited the new Wakefield health authority to learn about Wakefield's pioneering plans to develop a primary-led NHS. He praised the work of the health authority and of local GPs on total purchasing, which builds on the success of fundholding. In Wakefield, 85 per cent. of GP practices are now fundholders. Fundholding has improved patient care in Wakefield through the provision of new services, including rheumatology, cardiology, a cataract centre and increased day case surgery. It has also had a marked effect on waiting times at the two acute hospitals. At Pinderfields, waiting times have been cut by 50 per cent. for general surgery, and by about 25 per cent. for ophthalmology; at Pontefract, orthopaedic waiting times are down by 42 per cent. That is real success.
I shall now deal with the question of a merger. With three of his colleagues, the hon. Gentleman expressed concern about Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust and Pontefract Hospitals NHS trust in a press release issued last week following a meeting with the chairman and chief executives of Wakefield health authority and the two trusts. The hon. Gentleman is aware that, in early February, both the trusts and the health authority decided that it would be sensible to look at services across the two trusts and to work more closely together for the benefit of everyone. They expressed a wish to consider a possible merger of the two acute trusts. It is worth stressing the fact that Wakefield health authority believes that there is a need for two acute hospitals: one in Wakefield and one in Pontefract. I understand also that there is strong clinical support for a merger.
An examination of the options will, therefore, surely benefit patients in the Wakefield area. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the proposal is at a very early and tentative stage. The next step is that the proposed merger will come to me, as the responsible Minister and, if I agree to it and the two trust want to go ahead, public consultation will follow later in the year. That will involve local people, including the two local community health councils that cover Wakefield and Pontefract. I am sure that hon. Members will be involved fully in that consultation exercise: they will have every opportunity to express their views and I am sure that they will not be slow in doing so.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I am concerned that consultation exercises do not mean a great deal, as assurances are not followed through. Does the Secretary of State or the Minister study assurances that were given in past consultation exercises of the kind that I have described to check whether they were carried through?

Mr. Horam: Such assurances are not given lightly, and they are taken seriously. I shall study past assurances that were given in this case when it comes before me.
The hon. Gentleman knows that Pinderfields is developing a business case for a major new development under the private finance initiative. Any proposals for merger will take that project into account, so there are two reasons for consultation. One is the possibility of a PFI initiative by Pinderfields, which I welcome, and the second is the possibility of merger.
Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust is progressing PFI testing for redevelopment of the site to replace a fragmented configuration of buildings, many of which—as the hon. Member for Wakefield knows—are of poor quality. I have heard the hon. Gentleman—I agree with him—complain at great length about the age of some of those buildings. We want new facilities, if that is possible, not only for patients but for staff. I have seen for myself the huge improvement in morale that can result from new facilities, provided by whatever means. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to welcome that possibility.
The trust is making good progress and it should not be long before it selects the consortiums that will be invited to submit detailed proposals. There are some financial problems, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, but Pinderfields Hospitals NHS trust has made major progress in reducing waiting times and the length of waiting lists. In my view—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Sea Defences

1 pm

Mr. David Porter: Approximately 8,000 sq km of land in England and Wales lie within 5 m of present sea levels. Britain already relies to a great extent on sea defence and land drainage. Some of the low-lying areas that are especially susceptible to rises in sea levels are the coasts of East Anglia, Lancashire, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, the Essex mudflats, Sussex coastal towns, the Thames estuary, parts of the north Wales coast and the Clyde and Forth estuaries. Therefore, I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the matter of sea defence and coastal protection before the Easter recess.
I have been applying for an Adjournment debate for some weeks now and I started at the time of the bad weather in February, which illustrated just how vulnerable is our coastline. I have just drawn a place in the ballot and it is a matter of luck getting a debate, just as to a large extent it is a matter of luck whether we escape major flood damage in any winter. This is a national problem, as I have said, but I have the greatest concerns for the coast of East Anglia. The worst of the winter and the unpredictable early spring weather should be over for now and our crossed fingers and hoping for the best got us through, but the wind is constant and the sea never sleeps—certainly not the North sea.
Erosion goes on all year round, sometimes unnoticed and sometimes dramatically. For many weeks of the year, a potent mixture of high spring tides and northerly winds can prove fatal. When the weather is severe enough—as it was most recently on the nights of 19 and 20 February—to describe the coastline as being at the mercy of the sea is no exaggeration. Sometimes aging sea defences are turned to rubble in minutes. Yards of sand cliff, battered and weakened by the wind, are literally blown out to be scoured away in the boiling surf of an angry North sea. Anyone who doubts the existence of God should stand and watch it.
Despite loss of land and some properties in Norfolk, in my constituency of North Suffolk and further south in Suffolk, most of the defences held, just, but it was close. Some of the Norfolk marshes were under salt water, some shingle banks disappeared and land at Kessingland and elsewhere in Waveney was lost.
Such problems are not new, by any means. The one-time city of Dunwich, which returned two Members to the House, is now merely a village. When the Lowestoft sea defences were built earlier this century, that accelerated the loss of half of Pakefield. When the 1953 flood defences failed, that claimed more than 300 lives and cost more than £900 million at 1989 prices to rebuild and strengthen. I remember walking as a boy with my father on the sea wall to the north of Lowestoft and looking out at the ruins of the sea wall on which he had walked with his father, in his turn, looking further out at the sea wall that was once there, and so on.
Very early after I was elected to the House in 1987, I raised sea defence issues in general and the case of homes at Easton Bavents in my constituency in particular. Houses were demolished moments before they fell into the sea and people lost everything, without benefit of insurance or compensation. So we know that the problem is not new. The east coast has suffered erosion and been in retreat for centuries. We might be

tempted to ask why we have not sorted the problem out by now, but anyone who has seen the sea and wind at work will know that it cannot be sorted out for long.
After the 1953 floods, when there were no cash limits for Government Departments and no direct controls on local authority capital expenditure, money did not run out. The then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, accepted the report by the departmental committee on coastal flooding and major sea defences were installed. Many have been upgraded and replaced since, but most of those that survive are coming to the end of their useful life.
Ideas change and technologies change. When I spoke in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I complained about the plethora of bodies around the coast responsible for sea defence and coastal protection. There were more than 200, ranging from major councils to small harbour undertakings. I argued that there should be a national plan on what to save, where, and how to defend it. I said that the plan should be funded centrally, and not disproportionately by coastal dwellers and taxpayers. After all, the Royal Navy defends all our people and not just those who live on the coast. Since then, we have moved on. Larger shares of the funding for schemes are forthcoming from central funds, rather than local. We have had the National Rivers Authority and now we have the Environment Agency as a one-stop national body with a strategic overview of coastal protection.
We have seen several local authorities with common interests working informally together, pooling resources and ideas and recognising the two universal truths—that the sea knows no authority boundaries and that one man's erosion is another man's beach enhancements. I must pay tribute to Terry Oakes, a senior officer of Waveney district council, who has been a driving force in this work and is an acknowledged expert. Why, he even knows more than I do.
So we have moved a long way. We have documents such as the shoreline management plan from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is a guide for coastal authorities and pulls together the disparate strands. We have a guide to good practice by MAFF called "Coastal Defence and the Environment". The flood defence committees of the old National Rivers Authority are working well and the internal drainage boards are working on all the rivers that drain farmland into the sea. The NRA worked on river management ideas and the Environment Select Committee three years ago wrote a report on "Coastal Zone Protection and Planning". The National Audit Office is also watching coastal defence. With all that happening, we should feel confident that the events of 1953 cannot happen again, but even so we know that they can. Statistically, they probably will in our lifetimes.
What are the options for any given stretch of coast? One option is, of course, to do nothing, but in Norfolk, the motto is "du different". In parts of Suffolk and Norfolk, managed retreat—as it is fashionably called—is being considered as shoreline management plans are put together. Crumbling sand cliffs feed beaches further round or down the coast—beach nourishment. That is a more environmentally natural process, and it appeals because it is nature taking its course. It works with the natural process instead of trying to fight against it. Retreat, however, was not the Dutch approach. They pushed out into the North sea. I accept that in Britain it is acceptable


for some stretches of our coast to have managed retreat, but which stretches? Where do we draw the line and how do we defend that line? Those are the crucial questions.
The second option is to continue rebuilding hard engineering structures, such as groynes and sea walls. Those are vital in many parts to protect housing and life, but no one has ever advocated encasing Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex in a concrete defence fortress. The third option is to break the power of the waves offshore—for example, with rocks from Norway or elsewhere. That is happening and is certainly useful, but rocks have no impact on the wind's destructive power. I suggest that more work needs to be done on artificial reefs—for instance, those made with compacted household or industrial waste—to lessen wave power. I say that at the same time as I acknowledge the work done by the Ministry of Agriculture's Advisory Committee on Flood and Coastal Research and Development, which long ago argued for improved methods of design and operation and the need for collaboration between scientific disciplines, funding agencies and overseas research teams.
In so far as there is an answer, it is in working towards a national strategy put together locally and incorporating a mixture of defences and managed retreat. The local consultations are a vital part of that. People place, not surprisingly, the highest priority on saving their lives and homes. Urban areas need high protection and good, well-understood and practised early-warning systems. Stopping new building near the sea helps, of course. But I come back to the crucial questions: where do we draw the line and how do we defend it? In parts of Waveney, eventually, the A 12 trunk road—our economic lifeline—will become the line. How do we defend a trunk road against the sea?
Two years ago, in describing the state of our coastal defences following a coast protection survey of England, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), in a written answer, stated:
The survey also identified some 135 km of unprotected coast which is at present significantly eroding and where the provision of works may need to be considered within the next 10 years."—[Official Report, 30 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 770.]
Times move on, and with sea defence, time is not on our side.
Three other aspects must be borne in mind, especially in respect of the North sea. Last week, together with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for the Environment—in his capacity as the Member of Parliament for Suffolk, Coastal—I attended the official opening of Sizewell B. That superb occasion crowned a civil engineering project greater even than the channel tunnel, putting in its place, as part of the nation's economic engine, a triumph of British engineering, design and build—a nuclear power station.
As a correspondent of the liaison committee and the neighbouring Member of Parliament—many of whose constituents work at Sizewell A and B, while others helped to build them—for a constituency that takes the safety of those stations seriously, I have a copy of the Suffolk local authorities' emergency plan. That excellent document inspires real confidence, and I do not condemn it when I say that its coverage of disaster caused by sea flooding is almost

nil. There are emergency plans for contamination, radioactivity and evacuation—not for overrunning by an angry North sea. That is understandable, but it means that the integrity of those power stations and of Sizewell C—which I hope will be built one day—must be guaranteed for ever. That provision must be built into the management shoreline plans for the future. If the protective sandbank of Sizewell were ever to be dredged, the credibility of those stations would be in question.
There are currently eight different licensed companies operating 2,000 to 8,000 tonne dredgers on our offshore sandbanks. I do not knock that industry. On the contrary, it is a valuable part of our local and national economy, and it makes a useful contribution to the Exchequer. The demand for aggregates for roads and buildings of 5.5 tonnes per person per year is insatiable, and those aggregates must come from somewhere. Thirty per cent. of that tonnage comes from the East Anglian coastline. I know about licensing, safeguards and agreements to cause minimum disruption to fishing, but many people feel that the rapid increase in erosion of the North sea coastline over the last 15 years is far greater than can be ascribed to natural factors or even global warming. Dredging must have an impact, even in an lively, undercurrent-strong, relatively shallow sea such as the North sea.
That impact must be felt on sea defences, fishing, and the beach and holiday industries. That impact may be accelerating, and further studies are needed—particularly as a large amount of our offshore sand is sold to Holland, which has stricter restrictions on offshore dredging because of that country's sensitivity to flood prevention.
In addition to the risks created by erosion and subsequent flooding that I touched on, whatever the mixture of causes, we have a lot of high-grade agricultural land. Given the uncertainties of the global food supply, it would be a madman who said that we have too much land in Britain and will have for ever, from here on in.
Other industries put pressure on the sea, such as gas and oil extraction—although I am not saying that they cause erosion, because clearly they do not. However, management plans must take account of all the uses to which the North sea is put, the pressures that it is under naturally and from man, and take a view—which should be built in to defence protection—of proposed future industrial uses.
I say that with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) in his place. I cite the example of the much-trailed outer-harbour scheme for Great Yarmouth, which must be properly assessed for its coastal erosion potential for my constituency, to reassure my constituents, who are concerned about the coastline between Corton and Hopton, not to mention the economic impact on Waveney, before any more false hopes are raised on that great white hope—or great white elephant, which might be an more appropriate description.
I argue for a national strategy that is devised locally with agreed defence lines, and for fair compensation for everybody who is on the wrong side of the defence lines; proper debate of the appropriate mix of defences in each area; and national funding of all sea defence works, coastal protection and river flood works.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend has given an excellent exposition of all the issues, to which the Minister is about to reply. Does he agree that many of the issues relating to the North sea apply to many


other coastal areas, including my own? My hon. Friend the Minister has been most helpful in dealing with the urgent problems of south Blackpool shore—many of which have commonality with the problems of my hon. Friend's own constituency.

Mr. Porter: My hon. Friend is right to remind me of the national impact of coastal defence. I mentioned that at the beginning of my speech, but have concentrated on my own area of East Anglia. I am asking for a national sea defence plan that is devised locally. Blackpool's different concerns should be incorporated in such a plan.
Any confusion about the new Environment Agency reporting partly to the Department of the Environment and partly to MAFF should not be allowed to take hold and be a permanent problem—or be a scapegoat for inaction.
Coastal defences should be at the forefront of MAFF's action files during the summer, to build public confidence for next winter. If the sea had got into the Broads in February, or had taken lives and more homes in Suffolk and Norfolk, it would have been an environmental, economic and human tragedy that would have made the Sea Empress disaster look like a teddy bears' picnic.

The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) has set out his concerns and those of his constituents with his customary force and feeling. I am delighted that he was supported in doing so by my hon. Friends the Members for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has taken a keen interest in coastal defence issues over the years and holds strong views on how they might be organised. I am responding as the Minister with responsibility for flood and coastal defence policy.
I was growing up in Essex at the time of the 1953 floods, and I appreciate that the damage and distress that flooding causes, and the direct loss of land and property caused by coastal erosion, are, understandably, highly emotive subjects. My hon. Friend is right to bring them to the attention of the House. Even in cases where life and limb are mercifully not lost, the damage and distress that is sustained by those affected is often severe—and not just in economic terms. Apprehension of potential effects is also serious.
Although natural events such as flooding and erosion can never be entirely prevented, it is obviously right that the public authorities that are empowered to take measures to reduce the risk take action where it is reasonable to do so. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has overall responsibility for flood and coastal defence policy in England.
Rather than respond in detail to each of my hon. Friend's constructive points today, I give him the assurance that I shall reflect carefully on them and reply in due course. My hon. Friend will be aware that some measure are already in place—for example, with marine dredging, through the Government review procedure, and the potential for compensation for certain kinds of coastal defence measures. However, MAFF has the overview, and is pleased to discharge that responsibility.
The planning, design, construction, maintenance and operation of defence measures is undertaken by a number of operating authorities. The new Environment Agency,

which came into being this week and assumed all the functions of the National Rivers Authority, supervises all matters relating to flood defence in England and Wales. Through its regional and local flood defence committees, the agency can take action to reduce the risks of flooding from designated rivers, which are called main rivers, and the sea.
Internal drainage boards, of which there are 235 in England, have powers to implement measures to alleviate flooding in districts with special drainage needs, such as the Fens, other than on main rivers. Local authorities may carry out works on water courses other than main rivers and on those in internal drainage board areas, to alleviate flooding from rivers or the sea. Maritime district councils have powers to protect the land against erosion or encroachment by the sea.
The financing and administration of that work was considered in a consultation document issued in 1985, which raised the question of whether the powers of local authorities should be transferred to the then water authorities. In the light of the responses received, the Government decided that, although such an arrangement would have the benefit of administrative tidiness, on balance it was better to retain the existing arrangements. That decision has been reviewed twice. On each occasion, we concluded that no changes of substance should be made, and that conclusion was endorsed by Parliament when enacting the Water Act 1989 and establishing the Environment Agency in the Environment Act 1995.
Flood defence work is essentially long-term, and it was important that there was continuity when the Environment Agency took over from the National Rivers Authority. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks about continuity in that respect.
As I have said, we believe that the present system is effective. Maritime councils, like Waveney, and the National Rivers Authority have a proven record of achievement on coastal defence issues. Also, it is important that local authorities, which are accountable to local people and have detailed knowledge of local issues, should be involved in key decisions about coastal defence works for their areas.
However, although the pattern of differing operating authorities has remained largely unchanged, thanks to the perceptions that my hon. Friend and others have brought to the matter, a more integrated and strategic approach to sea defence and coast protection has been developed over the past decade. In 1985, responsibility for coast protection was transferred to MAFF, and, since then, both sea defence and coast protection draw on the same administrative arrangements and engineering expertise, and have benefited from a common policy lead. In 1993, the Ministry and the Welsh Office published a strategy for flood and coastal defence—I know that my hon. Friend is aware of it—which sets out a comprehensive framework within which Government and operating authorities can work.
We positively encourage operating authorities to take a strategic approach to flood and coastal defence problems and to consider a wide range of possible options for their circumstances. Naturally, individual authorities must consider the possible impact that defence measures may have on neighbouring areas, and that is particularly important on the coast. We therefore encouraged the setting up and operation of coastal groups, now numbering 18. These groups provide a forum for discussion and


co-operation and help to ensure that coastal processes and activities taking place within particular stretches of coast are taken into account when reaching decisions.
To assist the operating authorities in the coastal groups in strategic management of each stretch of the coast, MAFF has encouraged the preparation of shoreline management plans and has issued guidance on their preparation. The aim of the plans is to provide a basis for sustainable coastal defence policies and to set objectives for the future management of the shoreline—much along the lines that my hon. Friend is advocating.
The completion of a plan should, inter alia, allow assessment of strategic coastal defence options, and inform the statutory planning process. Plans should be the subject of wide consultation with all bodies with an interest in the coastline. As my hon. Friend will know, Suffolk Coastal district council and Waveney district council are continuing to attach a high priority to the development of a plan for the stretch of coast between Lowestoft and Harwich.
The groups also play an important role in integrating these shoreline management plans with the work of local planning authorities. It is important to avoid creating problems in the future by discouraging inappropriate development in flood risk areas or on unstable coasts. Planning aspects play a key role in coastal defence and this will be even more important in the future as sea levels are expected to rise.
I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Government recognise the interdependence of competing pressures within the coastal zone and attach great importance to maintaining a national perspective.

Mr. Hawkins: When looking at competing pressures in coastal areas, will my hon. Friend and his officials take account of the difficulties that people who live on, or have businesses near, a coastline with a record of flooding face when obtaining insurance? That problem affects the constituents of many hon. Members.

Mr. Boswell: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. That is exactly the kind of consideration that can be fed into the economic appraisal which we carry out when evaluating schemes.
It is clear that policies on coastal defence should reflect and support wider coastal policies set out in statutory development plans and coastal zone management plans. The Environment Select Committee, in its 1992 report, expressed concern about the possibility of a sectoral approach to coastal policy. That is why the Ministry makes it clear that the management plans should take due account of other coastal initiatives. Equally, those plans will be an important source of information to other local plans such as development plans.
It is important to recognise that, given the tremendous diversity of coastal formations, there can be no uniform approach to coastal defence. Coastlines recede or advance with changes in current, wind and tide. It is therefore unrealistic to expect to maintain every inch of coastline as it is now. Instead, authorities must look at a range of options and consider the impacts of defending a particular stretch of coast so as to avoid, wherever possible, burdening future generations with the maintenance of unsustainable defences.
The Government's commitment to effective coastal defences remains unchanged, but the techniques for putting that commitment into practice are constantly evolving and improving. We now have a much better understanding of natural coastal processes and other conditions on which to base our policy. Whereas past defences often consisted of concrete sea walls, experience and recent research, much of it funded by the Ministry, has shown that techniques which simulate natural features, such as beaches or salt marshes, can be more effective in absorbing wave energy. Such methods are often better technically, as well as more cost-effective and environmentally acceptable, than traditional hard defences.
There has been some interest in the use of managed retreat in relation to coastal defence. That may be, as my hon. Friend said, the fashionable phrase, but I would prefer to call it managed setback. By that, we mean a deliberate decision to realign the existing line of defences in order to achieve environmental and engineering benefits. As such, we see it as one of the range of options for consideration in rural coastal areas. It may or may not prove to be the preferred option, depending on local circumstances. Its advantages can include the creation of a foreshore which, by absorbing the energy of the sea, will form part of the new line of defence. It may also enable the creation or recreation of intertidal habitats. I emphasise that there is no central Government policy to impose managed set back. It depends very much on local circumstances and the planning to deal with them.
I have spoken so far about the policy guidance that MAFF provides, but our assistance also has a tangible form in terms of the significant contribution that we make to the funding of defence measures promoted by operating authorities. We have two functions: the overall planning function, and the financing function. The Ministry provides grant aid to flood and coastal defence authorities for capital works which are technically sound, economically worth while and environmentally acceptable. Last year—1995–96—the Ministry grant for inland and coastal works was some £78 million. As my hon. Friend knows, the coastal problems in his constituency are primarily of erosion rather than flooding. The relevant coast protection authority, Waveney district council, has promoted a number of schemes, to which the Ministry has contributed some £3 million of grant in the last five years.
I believe that my hon. Friend has performed a service to the House by deploying his expertise in the debate on these issues today. I have done my best to set out the arrangements whereby the Ministry provides the policy lead and the framework for a strategic approach to coastal defence. Then the Environment Agency, and the other operating authorities in their defined spheres of operation, can carry forward that strategy through their local operational responsibilities, with a strong local component in their planning, execution and democratic accountability.
I contend that, despite the seeming complexity of these matters to those not directly involved or to those who are not practitioners in the field, the arrangements work effectively towards an important purpose: reducing the risk of flooding and erosion to the constituents of my hon. Friend and of many others. At the same time, they are designed to avoid clashing with, or damaging, the developed, the built or the natural environment.
It has been a pleasure and a privilege to debate these important matters today.

Uniform Business Rate (Wales)

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am very glad to have this opportunity to draw attention to the pressing need for action to help the many small businesses currently being driven to the brink of bankruptcy and beyond by the business rate system.
Launching its campaign against the uniform business rate in October last year, the Federation of Small Businesses described this tax as a "killer rating system", and it is right: the UBR is killing many small businesses—shops, garages and other smaller enterprises—which, given a fair chance, could grow into the viable and valuable firms that Wales and other places need.
Business failure in the small firms sector remains a significant problem. The federation estimated that, in the first six months of 1995, no fewer than 194,000 small businesses in the United Kingdom closed their doors, and many of them were helped on their way by the UBR. Although there has been a decrease in the number of business failures in the United Kingdom, I am afraid that the trend in Wales has gone the other way, with Touche Ross recording a 20 per cent. increase in the number of receiverships in Wales between 1994 and 1995.
Those facts are the background to this call for urgent action right now to relieve businesses in Wales and elsewhere from the crushing burden of an unfair and damaging system. The evidence of the damage done by the system is all too clear in all parts of Wales—north and south, rural and industrial—and in the other nations of the British Isles. The casualty rate among vital economic enterprises is especially severe in rural Wales, which already suffers from higher rates of unemployment, lower than average wages and outward migration. Moreover, rural Wales is now also threatened by an immense potential economic crisis as a result of the BSE situation.
A few examples may help to translate general principles into concrete instances. A business in Ynys Môn has found its trade greatly reduced because of changed traffic flows through the port of Holyhead; yet that reduction in trade has not resulted in an adjustment in its business rate bill, which stands at £6,768. The result has been the loss of four jobs in an area which is an unemployment black spot.
The first objection to the business rate is that it is a job killer. It kills small businesses and reduces employment in the few that survive. So why did the Government introduce it? I wonder whether the House recalls who it was who said on 11 March:
Small businesses are not some minority interest—they are the backbone of our economy and the main source of future jobs".
It was the Prime Minister, of course, and he went on to promise the removal of unnecessary shackles from business. Words are one thing, however, and removing unnecessary shackles is another—but replacing the UBR really would really make a difference.
Our second objection to the UBR is that it is unfair. It hits the high street shops of our towns while favouring out-of-town hypermarkets, which are becoming more and more evident and influential in the economy of rural Wales. The UBR has increased the difficulties of smaller shops and added to the pressure for increased use of private cars. There is therefore also

an environmental dimension, and there is considerable concern as a result of reports yesterday that the Secretary of State is unwilling to try to control the growth of out-of-town or edge-of-town supermarkets in Wales.
I will give an example of the effect of the UBR in the market town of Cardigan in my own constituency. A warehouse there found its rateable value increased from £1,400 to £1,800 in the recent revaluation. Another business, a local carpet shop, found its rateable value increased from £6,480 to £8,200, causing its UBR bill to rise from £2,640 to £3,321—an increase, before transitional relief, of more than 25 per cent., which is vastly in excess of inflation. That business already had difficulty meeting its bills, but it now has arrears of £6,000 to add to this year's bill. Unfortunately, that example is typical of a situation which is becoming cumulatively more difficult.
A business management consultant acting for that business appealed on its behalf to the valuation office in Carmarthen for a reduction in rateable value, but to no avail. The consultant—Mr. Gonzalez of Pwllhai, Cardigan—made eight such appeals two years ago, but none was allowed. As a result, five of the eight enterprises closed. He has made 14 appeals this year; one wonders how many of those businesses will still be open 12 months from today.
The alleged basis of the business rate, according to schedule 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, is that it should
be an amount equal to the rent at which it is estimated the hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year".
But how can the current rate be justified when it is now many times the rent which could be obtained? Currently, the rent of a small office in Cardigan could be as little as £5 per week.
In Denbigh, Clwyd, 22 local traders attended a meeting in July, organised by Councillor Gwyneth Kensler, to discuss the rate increases. One of the traders, who runs a shoe shop, was quoted in the Denbigh Vale Advertiser as saying:
These rates are crippling. Based on their assessment I'm meant to be able to attract a rent of around £300 a week on my property—the truth is I'd be struggling to make £100.
Traditional shopping centres are also suffering, and not only in the rural west and in the valleys. In the village of Dinas Powys, for example, just five miles from the centre of Cardiff, local shopkeepers have recently written to the Vale of Glamorgan council calling for a reduction in this year's bills. The signatories include a hairdresser, a travel agent, a pet shop owner, a greengrocer, a newsagent, and the operators of a grocer's store, a souvenir shop, a linen shop and a post office; such are the many types of business under pressure.
It is clear that the 1995 revaluation has made the situation much worse. The average increase in rateable values in Wales was 25 per cent., with particularly large increases for offices and warehouses. But the rateable values bear no relationship to today's real economic circumstances, where falling rents are not a statistical theory but a market nightmare and a reality. Although the multiplier used to work out the actual bills from the


rateable value was reduced for last year's bills, and will stand at 40.5p in the pound for Wales next year, the net result has been to drive bills upwards.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: My hon. Friend may know that I made representations last year to the Development Board for Rural Wales, asking it to lower commercial rents in mid-Wales. It agreed because the market reflected such a move, which is exactly what my hon. Friend is saying. I agree with him entirely.

Mr. Dafis: That demonstrates the reality of the commercial circumstances in rural Wales.
The net result of the multiplier has been to drive bills upwards to such an extent that the Government have been obliged to introduce transitional relief for the second time since 1990. The fact that transitional relief is necessary is an admission that the whole system is defective—and ultimately transitional relief means just that, because traders face the prospect of their rate bills being driven up to the target level in the next five years.
What justification is there for increasing bills by as much as 10 per cent. when the inflation rate is 2.5 per cent.? Last year, overall receipts from the business rate went up from £478 million in 1994–95 to £516 million in 1995–96—an increase of 7.8 per cent., which is more than twice the rate of inflation.
On 4 March, members of Pwllheli town council resolved to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) to express their great concern at the number of empty shops in the town. It is worth reading some of the letter, written by the council clerk, Mrs. Mair Williams, and translated into English. She said that business rates are much too high and that
the rates of small shops in the High Street are higher than those of large shops and those on the outskirts of the Town. We fear that reorganisation will lead to a still greater increase in the rate. We understand that it is Government policy not to build more out of town hypermarkets but they are still going up.
The Council asks is it possible to get rid of the business rate which is as unfair as the 'Poll Tax' some years ago, in order to see High Streets of our Towns prospering once more.
I remember that, at the time of the poll tax campaign, many people felt that too much attention was diverted from the problems caused by the UBR, which was introduced at the same time.
The smaller shops have the strongest complaint, because the present system is loaded against them. High street shops are valued according to a zoning method which assumes that the front part of the shop, which includes the entrance and shop window, is the most valuable. Small shopkeepers find that method unfair as their rates are proportionately higher than larger shops, including hypermarkets, which have a smaller proportion of their total retail space in those higher-value zones because most of their space is behind the frontage.
Our third objection to the UBR is that it is a flat rate burden placed on business properties, without any sensitivity to the ability of the business to pay. That has always caused a problem, but it acts in a particularly negative way in two specific cases.
The first set of circumstances is where a business may go through a bad patch, sometimes for reasons outside its control—for instance, a major road scheme may prevent passing trade from calling at the premises. I recognise that in those circumstances there are powers under existing legislation for local authorities to give assistance towards the cost of the business rate, provided that it is not a long-term subsidy. That assistance helps the business to bridge a limited time of difficulty and is offered where the business has every prospect of being run in a viable manner thereafter.
Unfortunately, many of the old district councils in Wales are either unaware of those powers or reluctant to use them. I am glad to say that the borough of Taff Ely, during the five years when it was run by the coalition led by Plaid Cymru, used those powers and enabled at least half a dozen small businesses to survive which otherwise might not have done so. I therefore wish to press the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister to bring to the attention of the new unitary authorities the fact that those powers exist and to encourage them to use them where appropriate. I assure the Minister that that help really is necessary. Mr. Gonzalez, to whom I referred earlier, also presented appeals to three district councils for hardship reductions under section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, but without any success.
The recent rural White Paper for Wales refers to the need for fresh guidance on that scheme and for a new rate relief scheme for general stores and post offices in villages. We welcome that relief because those shops are in a special category, but the towns are in the front line as well and a more wide-ranging review should be conducted.
Another set of circumstances reveals the need for a similar flexibility, but local authorities appear not to have the necessary powers. I refer to the position of small businesses starting up for the first time. Usually, the first year or two of any business venture proves expensive, with income building up only gradually. There is therefore considerable pressure on cash flow. If it were possible for a business taking over a property liable to pay UBR for the first time to be allowed a UBR holiday for the first 12 months or even two years, one of those disincentives would be removed. That must surely be good for everyone, not least those towns which currently have increasing numbers of empty shops and where local morale as well as local business would be boosted by new enterprises taking over those premises.
I understand that there are different opinions as to whether a local authority is empowered to operate such a scheme, and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether such schemes may be set up by the new unitary authorities in Wales. If the new local government legislation is unclear on this matter, may I press the Minister to introduce the necessary amendments to that legislation to enable unitary authorities so to act? If such a power does exist already, may I press the Welsh Office to distribute a circular to the new authorities, drawing their attention to it and urging them to use it?
The Minister may reply that the unitary authorities can act on one or other—or possibly both—of the two suggestions that I have put forward, but that they have to pay for those initiatives out of their own discretionary resources so that the total UBR fund collected by the Welsh Office is not reduced. That would be unacceptable. After all, if the provision of a business rate holiday


scheme succeeds, shops that were previously standing empty will be filled, and the UBR fund in future years will be that much better off. At the very least, the Welsh Office should therefore agree to fund 50 per cent. of any such reduction or business rate holiday. Alternatively, it should allow the local authority to retain the entirety of the business rate paid in future years by a business which has been helped in that way.
I put forward those ideas in the context of the existing UBR and make no apology for focusing on the real needs of small businesses this year. There is an urgent need for action, but help is also needed now for businesses that are confronted with large arrears. It is the Government who have landed them with those bills in the first place and have limited the freedom of local authorities to raise money. The Government therefore have the duty to provide local councils with the necessary cash to enable them to use their discretion to write off many of those debts.
Plaid Cymru's basic position is that the UBR system should be scrapped and replaced by a system geared to local income tax. We have advocated that system consistently for many years. We propose the abolition of the council tax and the UBR. Under our system, limited liability companies would pay an incorporation tax based on company profits. Small business owners or partners would be exempt as they, along with other people, would pay a local income tax set by the local council but administered through the Inland Revenue system. Plaid Cymru also supports a property tax for second homes and the transfer to local authorities of part of the VAT take in their areas.
I emphasise the importance of the small business sector. Profits from small businesses circulate in the local economy. They often source locally and they certainly use local services such as solicitors, accountants and banks. In that way they increase the linkages within local economies which contribute so greatly to the vitality of those economies. Their behaviour is in stark contrast to that of the supermarkets and other multiples which siphon wealth out of the local economies on a huge scale.
Plaid Cymru sees the need for radical, urgent action in the short term. I hope that the Minister can offer us some comfort.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am glad that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has given me the opportunity to discuss the important matter of business rates.
I should perhaps begin by recalling why six years ago we abolished locally set rates. In the 1980s, rates in England and Wales rose on average by 37 per cent. above inflation when many local authorities chose to load the costs of high spending decisions on to businesses because they knew all too well that businesses had no vote. We can see that happening again as Wales is being caned by increases in council tax of up to 25 per cent. The difference between the much lower increases of last year and those of this year is that this year there are no elections in Wales to hold those councils accountable.
By 1990, under the old business rates, the poundage in Wales ranged from 241p to 334p. Businesses were unable to operate on an equal basis—a position exacerbated by the fact that values were outdated, going back to 1973.

Unpredictable annual increases in rates made it impossible for businesses to plan ahead. The business community was vociferous in its complaints about the local rating system and pressed for change to national arrangements.
The uniform poundage for Wales means that businesses throughout the Principality are now treated on an equal basis. Five-yearly revaluations provide that rateable values are reviewed and updated regularly. Year on year, between revaluations, the poundage cannot rise ahead of inflation. In a revaluation year, the poundage is set to raise the same amount in real terms as in the last year of the old list. Those arrangements give the business community certainty and it does not want to return to the old rates system.
The starting point for rating is any actual rent paid on the property itself. For the 1995 revaluation, occupiers were asked for details of the rents they were paying. The evidence was used to assess the open market rent, which takes account of any incentives given to occupiers such as a lump sum payment or a period when no rent is payable, and any other special considerations. It is therefore possible that a business's rates could be higher than its rents in special circumstances. Nonetheless, it is important that values are assessed fairly. Before setting the rateable value, the valuation officer examines the rental evidence for similar properties in the area and ensures that rateable values are consistent. Data collected by the Valuation Office Agency show that, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, shop rents rose between 1988—the valuation date for the 1990 non-domestic rating list-and 1993. contributing to a rise of some 25 per cent. in rateable values for shops in Ceredigion.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the differences between town centres and out-of-town areas. I assure him that the system of assessment is carried out on the same rentals basis for both types of area. The hon. Gentleman strayed into planning issues, and I have to remind him that planning is a matter for the local planning authority. We have set out clearly in our new guidance the sequential approach—when considering shopping developments, local planning authorities should look first at town centres, only then at edge-of-town centres and only then at out-of-town centres. At the same time, they should have regard to the effect that out-of-town developments have on existing developments.
I acknowledge that rates are a tax on property rather than on individual businesses. The rental value of property does not reflect the profitability of a particular business, but rates do reflect the rentals that occupiers are able to pay. The hon. Gentleman's party argues for a different basis for local taxation of businesses. As the hon. Gentleman said, his party proposes a local income tax and an additional contribution of corporation tax by limited companies. However, he would have to consider whether that would mean that local businesses were making a contribution to the cost of local councils. I believe that they should, but it would depend on the location of their head offices.
Another difficulty is that of, in effect, relating local tax to profits, which would be very burdensome. Profits vary from year to year. The tax would be complex, it would provide no certainty for businesses, and it would remove links between local authorities and the business community. Nor do I believe that such a change would find favour with the business community. The hon. Gentleman may care to reflect on the recent report by Dun


and Bradstreet, which states that firms in Dyfed are the most profitable in the United Kingdom—so a tax on profits could have serious consequences for his constituents.
The overall effect of the 1995 rating revaluation was a 20 per cent. increase in rateable values in Wales. Given the requirement that between revaluations the rates yield should be broadly the same in real terms, the poundage for Wales fell from 44.8p to 39p. Some 59,000 ratepayers were expected to face rateable value increases while some 21,000 were expected to have decreases. We therefore, very naturally, introduced a transitional scheme—I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman's opposition to it—along the same lines as the one applied in 1990, so as to spread the increases over the five-year life of the rating list. As a result of the transitional arrangements, no business faced an increase in its rates bill of more than 10 per cent. plus inflation.
We were especially concerned to help small businesses. For properties with a rateable value of less than £10,000, increases were limited to 7.5 per cent. in real terms. For small composite properties consisting of business and private accommodation, increases were limited to 5 per cent. in real terms. From 1996–97, the Government have made that help to small businesses even greater: small composite properties will be limited to real terms increases of 2.5 per cent., other small properties to increases of 5 per cent,. and larger properties to increases of 7.5 per cent.
The total cost of that extra help in Wales is around £8 million for each of the next three years. The arrangements particularly favour small retail businesses, including sub-post offices and village shops. For the 1995 list, the transitional arrangements continue to apply even when premises have a change of occupier. The transitional arrangements are also of particular benefit to businesses in Ceredigion, where just under two thirds were in transition to higher bills in 1995–96 as a result of the 1995 revaluation. On average, shops in Ceredigion have seen a real-terms increase in rates bills of 5 per cent. in 1995–96.

Mr. Dafis: I should make it clear to the Minister that I was in no way expressing opposition to the idea of transitional relief. I was merely saying that the fact that there is a need for such a mechanism shows that the system is seriously flawed.

Mr. Jones: I do not accept that. It relates to rental values, and it moves as the rental values move—not independently or arbitrarily. That is why, so long as we maintain a rating system of a tax based on property, we need to have the greatest consideration for small businesses and to establish transitional arrangements at the time of changes in valuation. The five-year period means that there are greater changes, but in itself it gives

greater certainty to businesses because they can plan ahead rather than having to face changes perhaps every year, or as often as the hon. Gentleman's party suggests.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the opportunities for local authorities to give discretionary relief on hardship grounds. They are able to do so—there is no difficulty about that—but I know what he means about the limited use of hardship relief in Wales. More than £1 million was offset centrally from the rates pool in 1994–95 to cover all discretionary reliefs, including relief for charities and other non-profit-making bodies. Of this, however, only about £10,000 was for hardship relief, with only 15 out of 37 authorities granting such relief.
The Government, too, are concerned and are reviewing the situation, asking billing authorities about their policies and asking ratepayers for their views on how the relief provisions are being used. We will consider what action is needed in the light of that assessment, but it is likely to include identifying examples of good practice and issuing new guidance.
I believe that businesses are far better off under the system of uniform business rates than under either the old rating system or the system of local taxation that Plaid Cymru favours. Businesses have the assurance that there will be no real terms increases in their rates burden to finance extra expenditure. Indeed, in the previous five Budgets, the Government have committed a considerable amount of additional transitional relief to ratepayers, which means that, overall, in real terms ratepayers pay less in rates than they did in 1989–90.
The transitional relief arrangements and the review of the hardship arrangements show that the Government take careful account of the needs of small businesses. Our concerns for such businesses are also clear from the proposals set out in the White Paper, "A Working Countryside for Wales", in which we propose to provide additional relief for village shops and post offices. I was glad to have the hon. Gentleman's welcome for that. We shall shortly be issuing a consultation document, seeking views on the conditions which should attach to the relief in terms of the location, size, purpose and importance to the community of the shops concerned. I expect large parts of Wales to benefit.
As I have been at pains to stress, the Government take the concerns of small business about the business rate very seriously. We have listened to what small firms have said on this issue in the recent "Your Business Matters" series of conferences, one of which was held in Cardiff last November. At the national conference for small business on 11 March, the Prime Minister said that we are prepared to consider whether sensible changes could be made to make the business rating system fairer and more transparent. All the concerns of small businesses are under active consideration. I invite the hon. Gentleman to watch for developments in the coming months.

It being four minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended. pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Hong Kong

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the People's Republic of China over the handover of Hong Kong. [22610]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I visited Peking in January, and had useful discussions with the Chinese President, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister about Hong Kong.

Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend lose no opportunity in stressing to the People's Republic the benefits to both the people of Hong Kong and the People's Republic itself of a smooth transition in the handover *if power, and the benefits of inheriting an honest, reliable and efficient Administration? In particular, will he try to discourage the People's Republic from making statements that might create divided loyalties among public servants?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. The Hong Kong civil service has an unparalleled reputation not just for its competence and professionalism, but for its political impartiality and integrity. I believe that any attempts from any quarter to seek loyalty commitments would be not only inappropriate, but highly damaging to confidence in Hong Kong among some of the colony's most loyal servants.

Mr. Robin Cook: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the preparatory committee has now said that only 15 of the present members of the Legislative Council are likely to remain members after the handover? Is he aware that that falls dramatically short of the hope that China might make only minor changes to LegCo, and that it has dismayed supporters of democracy in Hong Kong? What assurances did the Foreign Secretary seek in Beijing about the future of LegCo? Given that the current council was elected under arrangements chosen by Governor Patten, with the support of our Government, what steps do the Government propose to ensure the continuity of LegCo beyond the handover date?

Mr. Rifkind: The Chinese Government's position is not even as the hon. Gentleman has described it. The Chinese Government do not intend LegCo to have a future after June next year, and they have consequently announced their intention of creating a provisional legislature. We consider that reprehensible and unjustifiable. Moreover, any problems will be compounded if none of the representatives of the majority of the electorate in Hong Kong are invited to serve in the provisional legislature.
It would appear from what has been said so far about the composition of the preparatory committee that none of the representatives of, for example, the Democratic party are being invited to participate. That is to be

condemned, and I hope that the Chinese Government will give further thought to what will be necessary to ensure the continuation of confidence.

Mr. Sims: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the Chinese Government and the people of Hong Kong that, although we shall no longer have administrative responsibility for the territory after the handover, the British Government and the House will continue to take a close interest in Hong Kong's affairs?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course we shall do so, both because of our ethical obligation to the people of Hong Kong and because of our continuing massive commercial and financial interests in Hong Kong's prosperity. We believe that not just the United Kingdom but the international community will look closely at the way in which China discharges its responsibilities once Hong Kong has been transferred. I very much hope that the Chinese Government will reflect on the fact that what happens in Hong Kong will be of intense interest not only to the people who live there, but to the whole world.

Middle East Peace Process

Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [22611]

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the middle east to discuss the peace process. [22612]

Mr. Rifkind: I received the Israeli ambassador last month. Representations have also been made by the Palestinians.
I have no plans for an early visit to the middle east.

Ms Jackson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply, but are not both Syria and Lebanon continuing to furnish safe havens for militant groups not only opposed to the state of Israel, but committed to the destruction of the entire middle east peace process? What are the Government doing to bring such influence as they possess to end that action and to urge Syria back to the peace table?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady is correct. It was the Syrian Government's failure to condemn the bomb outrages in Israel that led to the end of the Israeli-Syrian talks, which was a serious setback. With others, we have impressed on the Syrian Government the crucial requirement to desist from giving direct or indirect support to people who advocate violence. The peace process must include Syria as well as other countries in the region. It is important, therefore, that circumstances permit a resumption of negotiations between Israel and Syria. That would in due course lead to a peace treaty with Lebanon, so all these matters are closely interconnected. As the hon. Lady implies, the first step is the cessation of direct or indirect support for the people who are trying to destroy the peace process.

Mr. Pike: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree that, in the long-term peace process, it is essential that the international community takes strong action to condemn terrorism in the middle east. Does he further


agree that there should be no faltering of the economic progress made in the Gaza strip since the peace process was started, which could be to the advantage of any minority that advocates terrorism in the region?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes. If one goes to Gaza, one sees the benefits of the peace process: the huge economic construction that is taking place. Since the bombing incidents, the Israelis have had to take steps to close access to Gaza and to the occupied territories. That is unfortunate. We hope that it will be possible for the Israelis to relax those constraints, because anything that damages economic progress and development in either the west bank or Gaza is unlikely to help the peace process.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Israel has prevented Egyptian flour from being brought into Gaza, where there is a desperate shortage? Does he know that Israel has been stopping Palestinian farm produce from entering both Jordan and Egypt? Does he agree that such punishment, which is totally unrelated to security, will in the long run rebound on Israel and do nothing to help the peace process?

Mr. Rifkind: We realise that the Israelis have a natural desire to prevent access to the west bank or to Gaza of any material that might assist terrorists or terrorism, but that cannot, of course, be said to apply to foodstuffs or other humanitarian requirements. I understand that supplies are now flowing more naturally into Gaza and other territories—I hope that that is the case. We will encourage the Israelis to allow the basic requirements of people who live in those territories to be met by proper deliveries.

Mr. Batiste: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware first hand of the concern in Britain that, over many years, the IRA has been able to raise funds in the United States, so he will understand Israel's concern that Hamas may be raising funds for terrorism in Britain. Will he give clear and categorical assurances to the Israeli Government that such fundraising will not be allowed in Britain?

Mr. Rifkind: It is clear that any evidence that we might obtain that suggests that funds are being raised for terrorism would have to be dealt with in a specific and unambiguous way. Of course, there is always a practical difficulty in being certain where funds raised in Britain are being directed. Of course the people responsible for raising those funds always provide what sounds on the surface a reassuring explanation. We need to know, therefore, whether any evidence suggests that there are other destinations for such funds. If the evidence is available, there are powers to deal with such activities.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Has the Foreign Secretary had time to study the proposal for reconciliation based on a comprehensive and institutionalised dialogue signed recently between leading members of the Palestinian community on the west bank among whom were Faysal Husanyi; Marwan al Barghuthi, a representative of FIDA; Ghassan al Khatib; Samia Khuri, a women's activist, and members of Hamas? That proposal recognised the right of the Palestine National Authority to carry out its work within the framework of political pluralism. Is not that the

way forward for the Palestinian community on the west bank and in Gaza if we are to see a real comprehensive peace in the middle east?

Mr. Rifkind: We, of course, welcome any initiative that encourages democratic principles and political pluralism in the west bank and in Gaza. The recent elections for the Palestinians were an important step in the right direction. They allowed a free expression of opinion. The Palestinian people showed tremendous enthusiasm for that process and that also is very much to be endorsed.

Mr. Alexander: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the new Palestinian Government are to succeed and gain acceptance for the democratic principle, the authority of President Arafat must be upheld and supported? Will he condemn any country or individual that tries to undermine that authority, because otherwise President Arafat is in danger of losing the support of his own people?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes. As my hon. Friend implies, as a result of the recent elections, President Arafat now is not simply the leader of the Palestinians but the elected leader of the Palestinians. That gives him a democratic legitimacy which he may not have been able to claim in the past but which he is entitled to claim now. We very much hope, therefore, that that will be recognised by all who have the ability to influence events in that part of the middle east.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the real danger to peace in the middle east is that the peace process itself should go cold and that that is seen as a victory for terrorism and for those who are trying to derail the peace process? Will the Foreign Secretary also acknowledge that the danger of the peace process going cold is that it puts unmanageable strains upon the new Palestinian democracy and does little in the medium and longer term to add to the security of the people of Israel? What steps are the Government taking in terms of new initiatives to help the peace process, to ensure that the parties get round the negotiating table and that we get back to the optimism that was with us earlier in the year?

Mr. Rifkind: It was very much concerns of the kind expressed by the hon. Gentleman that led to the calling of the international conference at Sharm-el-Sheikh. That was an important opportunity for the international community, including the United Kingdom, to demonstrate our support for the peace process and our determination to ensure that it did not just get lost in the sand, and to give political support to the Israeli Government, to President Arafat and to other Arab leaders who are working for the success of the peace process. They need to know of the support, both political and economic, of the international community, and that, I believe, has given a considerable boost to the prospect of resurrecting the process in a credible and substantive way.
The next most important development will be the elections in Israel and we hope that those who are working for the peace process will get the endorsement of the Israeli electorate.

Mr. Carrington: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Israeli closure of the occupied territories


is causing great suffering to the Palestinian people and that that is having just one effect which is to encourage support for the terrorists among the Palestinians. If the Israelis want to keep the peace process on track, they must ensure that they open the borders to the occupied territories quickly, because that is the only way of recreating support for President Arafat and for the peace process.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to make those points. The Israeli Government will have to come to a judgment about whether the benefits that they perceive from the closure of the territories could be outweighed in the way that my hon. Friend suggests by a growing disillusion for the peace process among those who live there. The Israelis fortunately have the same interests as do we in the success of the peace process. Therefore, I hope that it will be only a short time before proper access is permitted again.

Nigeria

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he makes of the progress of the transition to democracy programme in Nigeria. [22613]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We remain concerned at the continued lack of substantial progress by the regime, even in meeting its own timetable. Human rights abuses continue and political freedoms are denied.

Mr. Martlew: Is it not the case that in the past we have hidden behind United States policy with regard to taking a sterner line against the military regime in Nigeria? Now that the United States National Security Council has called for a freezing of the military regime's assets, will we stop dragging our feet and take the lead in placing tighter sanctions on this despicable junta?

Mr. Hanley: It is unfair, indeed untrue, to say that we are hiding behind anyone else's policy. We are at the forefront of not only the united policy of the Commonwealth but the united policy of the European Union. As members of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, we are taking urgent steps. The next meeting will be on 23 April. We are considering a wide range of issues while waiting to see whether Nigeria takes the opportunity of going down the path that it has already declared that it will follow towards civilian rule.
The European Union has set up a series of sanctions against Nigeria and we are considering any other sanctions that might be considered by the United States that are effective and do not hurt the ordinary people of Nigeria. Therefore, it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that we are dragging our feet. Quite the reverse: we are at the forefront in trying to make Nigeria see sense and come into the real world.

Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend to think long and hard before imposing further economic sanctions? Does he agree that economic sanctions often hurt the people of the country without hurting the decision-makers? Does he remember the late Lord Wilson

saying that economic sanctions would break down Ian Smith in a matter of weeks rather than months, and that they took 15 years to do so?

Mr. Hanley: What my hon. Friend says is worth seriously considering. There are no economic sanctions on Nigeria at present, but the Department of Trade and Industry continues to keep the level of activity under review in the light of the prevailing political and economic circumstances. We shall continue to support British exporters, but we must consider whether sanctions are an effective remedy.
If it is suggested that sanctions need to be imposed and the main sanction is, let us say, oil, those sanctions will have to be properly policed. That may require a naval blockade and a considerable cost not only to us but to the broader community within the United Nations. My hon. Friend is right that the interests of the ordinary people of Nigeria must always be kept in mind.

Croatia

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the state of the United Kingdom's relations with Croatia. [22615]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): The United Kingdom established diplomatic relations with Croatia in January 1992, and has a resident ambassador in Zagreb. We will continue to develop our bilateral relations.

Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister aware of the latest report from Elizabeth Renn, the United Nations special reporter on human rights in Yugoslavia, in which she expresses considerable concern about the conditions of the Serbian people who remain in that country? She particularly refers to harassment, discrimination, robberies and violence and she has expressed concern at the impossibility in the present conditions of refugees returning to Krajina following the military actions of the Croatian authorities. Is it not time that we exerted real pressure on what has become a neo-fascist regime in Zagreb to ensure that human rights are restored in that part of the world?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The restoration of human rights is a matter of great concern in Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers does cause us concern. However, we can draw encouragement from the fact that the Croatian authorities are co-operating well with the international court which has been set up to try war criminals. They have told me that they have 1,000 people on their list for potential indictment. So we are making progress, albeit more slowly than the hon. Gentleman and I would like.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that many hon. Members accept that progress is being made? Despite the fact that Croatia is far from being a perfect democracy, does he concede that it has done a tremendous amount to harbour refugees within its borders? At one stage last year, some 10 per cent. of its population were refugees. Does not that humanitarian gesture deserve encouragement and support?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree that we should do all we can to encourage both Croatia and the Federal


Republic of Yugoslavia to treat their refugees well. Both countries deserve credit for the number of refugees that they have taken as a result of the tragedy in Bosnia. None the less, there is still much work to be done on that front. The international community must continue to work to ensure that still greater efforts are made.

European Union

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the prospects for enlargement of the European Union. [22616]

Mr. Rifkind: Extending eastwards the security and prosperity we enjoy in the west is the fundamental task for Europe over the next decade. The United Kingdom is playing a leading role in taking that process forward.

Mr. Barnes: Is not democracy very precious, especially for the new democracies of eastern Europe? Why should they have to give up much of their hard-won democracy in joining the European Union, which is centralised and bureaucratic? Why do we not turn it into a democratic system, so that, when democracies move into the European Union, they only transfer democracy? Should not that always be done by referendum, so that the people can agree to that transfer of democracy?

Mr. Rifkind: It will, of course, be for each applicant country to decide its internal arrangements for confirming any desire to join the European Union. I have no doubt that countries that have been deprived of democratic institutions for 50 years and which have won them back in the past few years will be loth to give them up, for reasons that we all appreciate. We seek a European Union that is fully consistent with the democratic principles to which we all attach importance. The European Union exists on the basis of a belief in democratic values, so there should be no inconsistency between the two objectives.

Mr. Forman: While I welcome the general prospect of further enlargement of the European Union, is there any effective influence that Her Majesty's Government can exert to get a more rational order of enlargement? It does not seem sensible to some of us that the next states in line to join an enlarged European Union should be the micro-states of Cyprus and Malta. Does it not make more sense to give priority to the Visegrad countries?

Mr. Rifkind: Cyprus and Malta have already been promised that enlargement negotiations will begin within six months of the end of the intergovernmental conference. The applications of the Visegrad countries and other countries are subject to an opinion by the Commission on whether they are ready to start negotiations. It is quite possible that the Commission will record in favour of the commencement of negotiations. Therefore it is possible that those negotiations could begin at the same time as those with Cyprus and Malta. There are certainly some attractions in such an approach but we must await the judgment of the Commission, which has been asked by the European Council to report on their readiness to start the detailed accession stage.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Foreign Secretary recall the Prime Minister telling Parliament that he was not in

favour of referendums and did not intend to propose one for the British people? When did the Prime Minister change his mind?

Mr. Rifkind: The Government and the Conservative party believe strongly that it is important that, in circumstances where a general election might not be able to resolve a matter of this importance, the electorate should be able to do so through a referendum. The way in which the Conservative party is uniting on its European policy compares favourably with recent developments in the Labour party. After the hon. Gentleman proudly claimed that he spoke for a party that was unanimous on European policy, a week or so ago 50 Labour Members announced an organisation to campaign against the policy of their Front-Bench spokesman. I should have thought that he would show a little more caution in his remarks, especially today.

Sir Terence Higgins: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members believe that a referendum is incompatible with our system of representative parliamentary democracy? Does he agree that, if members of a Cabinet were to campaign for a single currency in a referendum—putting forward all the arguments—and lose, it would be fatuous for them to say that they had changed their mind? They would have no option but to resign.

Mr. Rifkind: I have no doubt that in any referendum it is crucial that the judgment of the electorate is fully respected. I have no doubt that that will apply in any future referendum.

Mr. Corbett: Can the Foreign Secretary reconfirm the strong support of the United Kingdom Government for the admission of both Cyprus and Malta to the European Union? Will he make it clear that, while we hope that the negotiating process will contribute towards a solution to the differences between the two Cypriot communities, those will not be allowed to block admission and, therefore, in effect give Turkey a veto?

Mr. Rifkind: No third party could have a veto on whether Cyprus might join the European Union. That must be a matter for the EU and the applicant country. If it is possible to achieve political progress that helps towards the reunification of the island, that will make negotiations infinitely easier than they would otherwise be. There can be no hiding the fact that a divided island is going to be a difficult issue for the European Union to deal with if it is contemplating the accession of a new member. To say that it is difficult, however, does not make it impossible—something that has to be borne in mind by all concerned.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, if Parliament agreed to go for a single currency, any referendum following that would probably need a 60 per cent. majority, as we have accepted that there would be constitutional change?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept that. If there were a referendum on a single currency, a simple majority would be the proper way of addressing the judgment of the electorate.

Bosnia

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Bosnia. [22617]

Mr. Rifkind: Compliance with commitments made at Dayton is generally good, but the situation remains fragile. We urge all parties to throw their weight behind the process of reconciliation.

Mr. Hain: Will the Foreign Secretary condemn—as I am sure he would want to—the horrific tampering with graves at a number of sites in Bosnia, including most notably the Sahinici One site, apparently with the intention of hiding evidence to allow mass murderers to escape? Is it not wrong and totally unacceptable that the implementation force should be refusing to secure such suspected sites? Will he use his good offices to press IFOR, through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, to ensure that the sites are guarded so that the international criminal tribunal can go there, collect the necessary evidence and bring brutal mass murderers to trial?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one condemns any interference with such sites. We are working closely with the tribunal on the sort of locations within Bosnia that might be of particular sensitivity and any request of the tribunal. I am sure that every effort will be made both by IFOR, and the police authorities within Bosnia-Herzegovina, to ensure that the sites are not tampered with in a way that damages evidence that would otherwise be available.

Argentina

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Argentina. [22618]

Mr. Rifkind: Apart from our disagreement over the Falklands and South Georgia, relations are good and continuing to improve.

Mr. Arnold: While I welcome the strong guarantees that this country is giving the Falkland islands and South Georgia, will my right hon. and learned Friend highlight the rapidly improving links between Argentina—one of the major economies of Latin America—and our country? In particular, could he highlight the considerable British investment that is taking place there and the great prospects not only for British investors but for British traders into that great country?

Mr. Rifkind: I certainly can. In recent times, some major British utilities—British Gas, Anglian Water and the National Grid Company—have made substantial investments under Argentina's privatisation programme. The total value of that work in 1994 was £225 million.

Helms-Burton Act

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made recently to the United States Government about the Helms-Burton Act. [22619]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We have made clear our concerns to the United States Government on a number of occasions recently.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend continue the Government's actions to persuade the United States to withdraw this ludicrous legislation—legislation that it has introduced in contravention of the rules of the North American Free Trade Area and the World Trade Organisation, which it helped to set up? That level of severity is no way to respond, even to the thoughtless and tragic shooting down of two civilian planes by the Cuban Government. Will he bring pressure to bear from the Government, and through the European Union and the Commonwealth, on the United States to reverse this piece of legislation, which is bad for everyone but which is worse for Cuba in its transition to democracy?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government take this very seriously. The Helms-Burton Act has two particularly objectionable clauses: title III, which gives United States citizens the right to sue in the American courts British and other foreign companies that traffic, as they put it, with Cuba and in Cuba; and title IV, which claims the right to exclude from the United States anyone connected with any company that may be trafficking in that way, and that appears to include shareholders and their families. The Government view that as unacceptable legislation, with very high extra-territorial content.
Therefore, we are making bilateral complaints to the United States Government, the most recent of which was a diplomatic note that we sent today—it will be put in the Library shortly, if it is not already there. We are also joining with our European Union colleagues to see what steps can be taken collectively to persuade the United States to think better of this unfortunate move. The permanent representatives will be meeting later this week to discuss this and the Foreign Affairs Council will be meeting towards the end of the month. The British delegation to both meetings will make strong representations that we should exert pressure on the United States to change its mind.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I welcome the Minister's words, and I offer the Labour party's full support for the actions that the Government have taken. However, will he accept that the briefings given by the Department of Trade and Industry have made it clear that the United States will take action on an exemplary basis against British companies to warn other companies about trading with Cuba? Will he make it clear that that would be grossly unacceptable to this country? Will he also make sure that the American President is under no illusions that it is the position of the British Government that he should use his power to delay this legislation indefinitely so that it cannot be used in this unacceptable manner against our national interests?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Certainly it would be wholly unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government if British companies were used as exemplars to discourage others from trading with Cuba, and we would make the strongest


representations to the United States Government were that to be the case. I believe that the President's right to defer the legislation refers specifically to title III, which does not come into effect until 1 August, so we have a little time. Her Majesty's Government will try as hard as they can to get the President to exercise that right. I am afraid that during an election year he may find it difficult, but we will do our best to make sure that he does.

Mr. Fabricant: Notwithstanding Her Majesty's Government's view towards the Helms-Burton Act, will my hon. Friend at least acknowledge that the United States Government are the single largest contributor of aid to the Cuban people?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am not sure whether that will continue to be the case—but, if it does, I will be the first to welcome it.

China

Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the promotion of human rights in China. [22620]

Mr. Hanley: We raise our concerns on human rights with the Chinese authorities at every suitable opportunity, both bilaterally and through the European Union.

Mr. Timms: What pressure are the British Government bringing to bear on the Chinese Government to secure the release of Wei Jingsheng, the human rights activist who was imprisoned last autumn? What steps are being taken to secure the adoption of the European Union-sponsored resolution on human rights in China by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees?

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We and our EU partners have expressed to the Chinese authorities our deep concern about the detention, trial and imprisonment of Wei Jingsheng. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to Mr. Wei's case during his meetings in Peking in January; the case was raised during the second series of meetings under the formalised EU-China human rights dialogue in Peking from 22 to 24 January; and we have repeatedly urged the Chinese authorities to show clemency in this case and allow Mr. Wei's early release.
As for the resolution, we are taking action in conjunction with our European Union partners and co-sponsored, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the resolution on human rights in China, including Tibet, at the 51st United Nations Commission on Human Rights in March 1995, which was defeated by only one vote. We and our partners have agreed to present a similar resolution on China at the 52nd commission, which is being held in Geneva until 26 April 1996.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that China will accept current standards and attitudes in relation to human rights in Hong Kong after it takes over the colony, rather than seeking to impose its own, currently very low and unacceptable, standards on that colony?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right to point out that we devote a great amount of work, concentration and

determination to that matter. We are continuing to press China to ratify a range of international human rights instruments, including the international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights. What we require for Hong Kong, what Hong Kong requires for itself and what I believe the Chinese also require of Hong Kong, is the greatest continuity in Hong Kong, as that is the way in which Hong Kong will manage to achieve the greatest confidence for the future, and that is in all our interests.

Sir David Steel: Is it accepted by the Foreign Office that we have a particular responsibility for human rights in the part of China that Hong Kong will become? If so, does the Minister recognise the disappointment that many of us felt when the Foreign Secretary reacted to the appointment of the preparatory committee, which excluded any member of the Democratic party in Hong Kong, by describing it as a "pity"? Surely we should be more robust than that. It was an outrage; it was stupid; it was short-sighted. Will the Foreign Secretary be more robust in future?

Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary took the opportunity, when in Peking, to mention several issues that he believed would increase people's confidence in Hong Kong's future and to mention actions that he felt the Chinese Government might introduce to increase confidence—to take heed of what the right hon. Gentleman said is one such issue.
Recognising democratically elected individuals in Hong Kong is a very important part of maintaining the world's confidence in Hong Kong's ability to continue in the way that it has in the past. I therefore feel that our continued interest in the region, which is without question, will include our continued interest in Hong Kong, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier. That is not only because of our trade interests and because of our regional security interests; it should be remembered that we continue to exercise a joint declaration until at least the year 2047. Therefore, we have responsibility for people in Hong Kong long after the transition.

Dr. Spink: My right hon. Friend may recall the controversy that surrounded the programme "The Dying Rooms" about the care of abandoned children in China. The film was shown in the House, and I know that several hon. Members who saw it were moved to tears. Will he take all possible steps to pursue the matter with the authorities in China and to ensure that all children in China receive proper care?

Mr. Hanley: I know that my hon. Friend speaks for everyone in the House on that issue. Because it emphasises the importance of bilateral dialogue, I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary took the opportunity, when in Peking, to raise that issue with the People's Republic. All who read the Human Rights Watch Asia report on the ill treatment of children in Chinese orphanages or watched the Channel 4 documentary would have been shocked by those pictures and the reports.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said that deep concern was felt in Government, by the British public and in the House at


that sensitive issue, and he emphasised to the Chinese Government that the best way for the Chinese authorities to respond to the allegations was to have a policy of complete openness. That policy includes free access to the orphanages by Chinese and foreigners alike. A group of European Union diplomats in Shanghai visited one of the institutions mentioned in the report and found no evidence of ill treatment. That is not conclusive proof, but greater openness on China's part will help to reveal the truth about the issue and will ensure that the abuses are reduced and eliminated.

Nigeria

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the 19 Ogonis currently awaiting trial on the same charges as those faced by Ken Saro Wiwa. [22621]

Mr. Hanley: Our high commissioner in Lagos has repeatedly made it clear to senior Nigerian Ministers that we expect any further trials to come before properly constituted courts that respect the basic legal rights of the defendant.

Mr. O'Hara: The Minister will be aware of the shock and abhorrence felt in the House and throughout the world at the travesty of a trial and the consequent executions of Ken Saro Wiwa and his eight fellow activists last November. The House and the world know that Her Majesty's Government's response to that outrage was verbal, feeble and ineffective—indeed, the order of the day seems to be business as usual. Will the Minister assure the House and the rest of the world that the Government will take stronger and more effective action to dissuade the Nigerian military regime from a similar perversion of the legal process in the case of the Ogoni Nineteen? Will he assure us that that policy will be implemented if there is a repetition of the show trials and executions of Ken Saro Wiwa and his eight compatriots?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right: we are very concerned about reports that a further 19 Ogonis may face the same tribunal that tried Ken Saro Wiwa. The regime must be in no doubt that that would certainly provoke further strong international reaction. As I said earlier, we have made it clear to the Nigerian regime that we expect any further trials to come before properly constituted courts that respect the basic legal rights of the defendant.
For their part, the Nigerian authorities have said that they will make changes to their court procedures. Those changes will not be introduced until some time next year, and that is not good enough. It is essential that there be properly constituted legal procedures in Nigeria. Until that occurs and there is further and more rapid progress towards civilian rule, we shall continue to impose the European Union sanctions and to take the action initiated by the Commonwealth in our determination to persuade Nigeria to reduce its human rights abuses.

European Court of Justice

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for the reform of the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement. [22622]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): We have set out proposals for changes to the European Court of Justice in "A Partnership of Nations". We will shortly publish a detailed memorandum.

Mr. Whittingdale: I welcome my hon. Friend's proposals as far as they go. While recognising that we need laws to govern the operation of the single market, does he accept that the European Court of Justice is a political body pursuing a federalist agenda? Will he consider introducing legislation such as that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) which is designed specifically to address that problem?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend puts his case very well and precisely. The problem relates not just to the European Court but to other European institutions that misuse or abuse treaty articles. The misuse of article 118A on the working time directive was supported recently by the Advocate General of the European Court. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised that issue at Turin with the leaders of the other European countries. My hon. Friend may be sure that issues around that nexus will form a central part of our negotiating objective. Alain Juppé, the French Prime Minister, raised the same issue a few weeks ago in a speech in France—so we are not the only ones taking an interest in it.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister confirm that he is seeking to curb the powers not only of the European Court of Justice but of the European Court of Human Rights, where the United Kingdom has been found guilty of 39 violations of human rights?

Madam Speaker: Order. The question refers to the European Court of Justice. Unless the hon. Lady can relate her question to that topic, I cannot allow her to pursue it. The hon. Lady might like to try again.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is it not simple embarrassment on the part of the British Government that drives them to seek to curb the powers of the courts, because they have been found guilty of violations on more occasions than almost any other country in the European Union? Will the Minister also admit that he is absolutely embarrassed among the European countries because of the United Kingdom position?

Mr. Davis: I will say two things to the hon. Lady. First, in respect of her assertion about the European Court of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) made the point very well. We support a strong European Court of Justice when it interprets and enforces the law and not when it manufactures the law. Secondly, in respect of her comments on human rights, this country has a record second to none on human rights and it is completely untrue to assert, as she did, that this country has lost more cases than any other.

Mr. Jessel: If the European Court of Justice has a built-in duty to promote European union so that it cannot concentrate exclusively on the application of justice


within the rule of law, surely it is not, in the traditional sense, a real court of justice and cannot be respected as such.

Mr. Davis: It is our contention that the court is perfectly capable of concentrating on the law, interpreting the law and enforcing the law. It does not have to extend the law, and that is our major point.

Ms Quin: As the Government will need the support of the all the other countries if there is to be any radical change in the workings of the European Court of Justice, will the Minister list those countries that support the Government's aims?
Furthermore, on the working hours directive, is not the Government's case completely undermined by the report that they commissioned which showed a clear link between long working hours and threats to health and safety?

Mr. Davis: I will make two points on that matter. First, we have had no useful thought or input on the European Court of Justice from the Labour party. It has had not one constructive thought. Secondly, when working hours are related to safety—for lorry drivers and factory workers, for example—national legislation exists to protect British workers. That is why we have one of the best records in Europe for health and safety at work.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: As part of my hon. Friend the Minister's positive and communautaire stance in all his European negotiations, will he seek to move closer to our friends in the Federal Republic of Germany? They seem to have the art of completely ignoring ECJ judgments and getting away with it.

Mr. Davis: In fact, they do not get away with it. The German Federal Republic loses a large number of European Court of Justice cases. That may make it think a little more about the operation of the court.

Gibraltar

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Spain and Gibraltar. [22623]

Mr. David Davis: We regret that relations continue to be marred by unjustifiable delays at the frontier caused by the Spanish authorities.

Mr. Banks: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give a clear guarantee that the future of Gibraltar will not be sacrificed in the wider interests of Anglo-Spanish relations within European Union political dealing? Will the Minister make a statement on the working or the non-working of the 1987 Anglo-Spanish airport agreement, which most Gibraltarian politicians think is inoperable? Indeed, I believe that the House of Assembly asked for the termination of that agreement in early February.

Mr. Davis: None of the interests of Gibraltar will be sacrificed in any of our negotiations. Indeed, almost on a week-to-week basis we have to deal with Spanish stances

on Gibraltar. Only recently, I intervened to prevent a directive that would have been prejudicial in its effect on Gibraltar. In view of the strong local feeling about the airport agreement, we have made it clear that we will not impose it without the agreement of the people and Government of Gibraltar. That is a clear undertaking and it will last.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's last statement, but does he agree that the problem began earlier—even when Spain was seeking access to the European Union? If Spain had abided by the treaty of Rome, it would have been recognising the boundaries. Another problem is arising with Cyprus, as it did with Ireland entering the European Community and not recognising the boundaries of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Davis: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which is why I adopted the stance that I did with a number of directives—and why one directive did not make it through the Council recently. I insist that we recognise the border as it stands, and the legitimacy of our sovereignty in Gibraltar.

Turks and Caicos Islands

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the governance of the Turks and Caicos Islands. [22625]

Mr. Rifkind: The Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands has our full support in his efforts to maintain good government. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), met a delegation from the Legislative Council on 1 April, and he subsequently wrote rejecting its petition for the Governor's recall.

Sir Thomas Arnold: I declare a registered interest. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a triangular administration involving London, a regional secretariat in Barbados and Grand Turk is a trifle excessive for a population of 14,000? Would not a lighter touch be more appropriate?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course we are always willing to consider any improvements for the administration of the island. At this time, I have no reason to doubt that our current arrangements make the best use of resources and do not involve any unnecessary bureaucracy.

Mr. Flynn: Why did right hon. and learned Gentleman reject the petition that alleged that Governor Burke treated the islands as a private fiefdom, treated the population with indifference and a lack of respect—having called them people of moral indifference, evaded the rules of customs clearance for his own family, appointed himself as a marriage officer to conduct the service for his brother-in-law and then immediately resigned from that office, and used a small fortune on the official residence at a time when the police funds are being neglected and crime on the island has risen 40 per cent. in the last three years?

Mr. Rifkind: I much regret that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to use the privilege of the House to make accusations against Her Majesty's Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands, when the allegations made against the Governor have been fully investigated, were found to be totally unjustified and were rejected. The hon. Gentleman might at least have taken account of the fact that, unlike his own efforts, the allegations against the governor were investigated and found to be unjustified. Against that background, it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman chooses to parrot allegations that he has been told about by other people.

Ukraine

Mr. Elletson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about United Kingdom relations with Ukraine. [22627]

Mr. Rifkind: We are committed to supporting an independent and democratic Ukraine playing its full part in Europe.

Mr. Elletson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to ensure that Ukraine is not overlooked in terms of the political and economic support that it receives? Does he agree that Ukraine is a European country in whose continuing independence and developing economic and political stability we have a strong interest?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. Apart from Russia, Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity will have more impact on political stability in Europe than that of almost any other country that has emerged from the old Soviet Union.

Mr. Bennett: Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that Ukraine has sufficient resources to close down the Chernobyl nuclear plant and, more important, to ensure that once it is closed it can be safely decommissioned?

Mr. Rifkind: There have been discussions between Ukraine and a number of western countries on the help that might be provided with regard to Ukraine's plans in that respect. We recognise that heavy burden on Ukraine, which is why the international community has felt able to make some help available in a number of ways.

UN Security Council

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to attend a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss its structure, function and membership. [22628]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to attend a meeting of the UN Security Council. We will continue to take an active part in the continuing debate on its composition and working practices.

Dr. Godman: What action is being taken by the Government to ensure that the peacekeeping budget is not totally depleted as a result of the financial crisis being

experienced by the United Nations? What steps are being taken to deal with that massive financial problem? For example, when will the Americans pay off their arrears?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I entirely agree that it is most unfortunate that the United Nations is facing a financial crisis. I further agree that it is most unfortunate that, of the $2.3 billion that the United Nations is currently owed, nearly half is owed by the United States of America. We are pressing the Americans to make good their deficit; I fear that in the short term I see little prospect of that. As the hon. Gentleman will know, however, the British and French Governments took the lead in the European Union in advancing proposals, which are now being considered by the UN and which have the full support of the EU, for reforms that should ensure the payment of arrears and a proper funding process.

Mr. Jopling: Does the Minister agree that the United States' $1 billion debt is quite intolerable? Will he get all Ministers, whenever possible, to put pressure on the Americans and the American Congress to put that right? This accumulated deficit is doing more to damage the structure and functioning of the United Nations than anything else.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. All Ministers will continue to pressurise the United States at every available opportunity to make good its deficit. My right hon. Friend is also right to point an accusing finger at Congress, which is not being co-operative with the Administration in attempting to resolve this difficult problem, but which appears to be using it for party political purposes.

Western Sahara

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on Western Sahara. [22632]

Mr. Hanley: We frequently make clear our support for the UN operation in Western Sahara in contacts with the UN Secretary-General, at meetings of the Security Council and in the informal Group of Friends of the Secretary-General on Western Sahara.

Mr. Mudie: The idea of a referendum on Western Sahara was first raised in 1973 and then promised in 1992, and we were assured by the Minister on 1 March last year that it would take place by October of last year. Does the Minister find it acceptable that it has still not taken place because of Moroccan obstruction? Can he explain why the Moroccans continue to be allowed to move thousands of Moroccan settlers into Western Sahara in an attempt at gerrymandering? When may we expect the Government to press in the United Nations for the referendum to take place, and for an end to the gerrymandering?

Mr. Hanley: I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman says. It is certainly disappointing that there has not been greater progress towards the referendum.


We are concerned by the current lack of progress in identification, including that of the extra people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. The truth is that, unless significant progress is made by the middle of May, when the UN Secretary-General is due to report on the subject, he will be forced to present options for the future of the UN operation which may include phased withdrawal. I would regret that, and I would urge both parties to agree to the referendum, and to arrange for one as soon as possible.

Helms-Burton Act

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the impact of the Helms-Burton legislation. [22633]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We have received a number of letters from Members of Parliament and business men about the possible impact of the legislation.

Mr. Michie: I welcome the Minister's comments earlier this afternoon about the legislation passed by the United States Congress. May we have a guarantee from the Government that if any British company finds itself faced with court action we will at least give it all necessary support? I accept that the President of the United States can delay title III after August, but in the meantime our companies need to know that they can engage in free trade without the threat of isolation.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it would be appalling if United Kingdom companies were disadvantaged by the extra-territorial aspects of the legislation. I cannot give him the undertaking for which he asks; what support might be given to companies is a matter for my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. We will certainly do our best to ensure that the impact on British business is limited. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that we have every intention of continuing to encourage United Kingdom-Cuba trade.

Angola

Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of progress in the peace process in Angola. [22634]

Mr. Hanley: President Dos Santos and Dr. Savimbi reached agreement on 1 March on several important points, including the formation of a Government of unity and national reconciliation by June and/or July. We look to the Government of Angola and UNITA to honour their commitments and implement the provisions of the Lusaka protocol without further delay.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister heard the recent warnings given by the UN Secretary-General that time is running out for UNITA to comply fully with its responsibilities for quartering and the delivery of weapons, and for it to demonstrate its good faith? Are not those warnings compounded by recent belligerent speeches from Dr. Jonas Savimbi, who said that he was prepared to fight on? Given that, at one stage, the civil war cost 1,000 lives a day, will the Government act with some urgency to prevent the circumstances in which Angola would slide back into civil war?

Mr. Hanley: I believe that the prospects for peace are brighter now than at any time since the elections in 1992. The United Nations Angola verification mission—UNAVEM III—is now fully deployed and is providing the conditions necessary to maintain the ceasefire, to undergo the quartering to which the hon. Gentleman referred and to demobilise the UNITA troops. Seven quartering areas are now open to receive troops, but it is disappointing that the rate of quartering has not been quicker. We are also concerned by reports that most of those being quartered are not front-line troops. We hope that progress will be made and we are keeping tabs on it. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development visited the area recently and talked to Dr. Savimbi, from whom she received some assurances.

Sentencing

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about crime and sentencing. I am today publishing a White Paper entitled "Protecting the Public", which sets out the Government's comprehensive strategy to tackle crime. That strategy is designed to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent crime; the police have the powers and resources that they need to catch criminals; the innocent are acquitted but the guilty convicted; and criminals are properly punished.
There is clear evidence that that strategy is working. Last week, I announced that recorded crime has fallen for the past three years in succession. That has happened only twice before this century. In 1995, there were 468,000 fewer crimes committed than in 1992—the largest ever continuous fall in the number of annually recorded crimes.
I pay tribute to the police—and all the local communities with which they work in partnership—for that achievement. But crime is still far too high and there is more to be done. That is why I announced a series of radical new sentencing proposals last October in Blackpool, which have one simple aim: to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals.
The first proposal relates to honesty in sentencing. At present, offenders sentenced to less than four years in prison can expect to be released after serving just half their sentence. Those sentenced to four years or more can expect to be released after serving between half and two thirds of their sentence. Automatic early release from prison enrages victims and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. I therefore propose to abolish it.
Under our proposals, there would be no more automatic early release. Prisoners who co-operated and behaved well would be able to earn up to 20 per cent. off their sentence. That will ensure that sentences actually served are much more closely matched to those handed out by the courts. In addition, it will give prisoners a strong incentive to behave properly in prison. On release, all prisoners serving 12 months or more would be supervised by the Probation Service for a period equivalent to 15 per cent. of their original prison sentence. The courts would be expected to take full account of those changes in the sentences that they pass.
Secondly, I refer to persistent serious sexual and violent offenders. The maximum penalty for crimes such as rape and attempted murder is life imprisonment. The advantage of the life sentence is that the offender will be released if and only if the Parole Board is satisfied that it is safe to do so. But serious sexual or violent offenders rarely get life—even if they offend again. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a second or subsequent serious violent or sexual offence. All could have received a life sentence—but only 10 did.
Offenders who do not receive a life sentence have to be released from prison after serving two thirds of their sentence, even if everyone working with them knows that they are likely to commit another serious crime on some innocent member of the public. The sad reality is that many of them do.
In 1994, around 40 serious violent or sexual crimes were committed by offenders who had already been convicted of a second such offence. I believe that that is indefensible. I therefore propose that anyone aged 18 or over who is convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence for a second time should be sentenced to life imprisonment.
In these indeterminate life sentence cases, the trial judge, not Ministers, would set the tariff—the minimum period to be served for retribution and deterrence. Once the tariff had been served, the Parole Board would decide whether it was safe to release the offenders or not. If the Parole Board decided that they still posed a danger to the public, they would remain in prison. Those considered safe would be released on life licence and subject to recall to prison at any time during the rest of their lives.
Thirdly, I refer to drug dealers. Drug dealers are a scourge on society. They prey on the young and the innocent and wreck people's lives and, because addicts often resort to crime to finance their habits, they wreck the livelihoods of others. Dealers in hard drugs such as heroin, Ecstasy and cocaine usually receive prison sentences but, in many cases, those prison sentences are not long enough for those who persistently commit that very serious crime.
A recent sample showed that the average sentence for a third conviction of dealing in hard drugs was just over four years, and those offenders are automatically released after serving only two and a half years. We need to send a strong and clear signal that persistent dealing in hard drugs is not something we are prepared to tolerate. I therefore propose that anyone aged 18 or over who is convicted on three separate occasions of dealing in class A drugs should receive a minimum sentence of seven years in prison.
Next is burglary. All burglary is disruptive and costly, but domestic burglary is particularly distressing for victims who lose their treasured personal possessions and feel that the sanctity of their home has been violated. I believe that persistent domestic burglars deserve long prison sentences, yet they rarely get them.
A sample of domestic burglars convicted in the Crown courts in 1993 and 1994 showed that the average prison sentence for a first-time offender was 16.2 months. Even after three or more convictions it was only 18.9 months, and after seven or more convictions it was barely higher, at 19.4 months—and offenders actually serve just over half that. Indeed, 28 per cent. of offenders with seven or more convictions for domestic burglary in the Crown courts were not sent to prison at all. In the magistrates courts, that figure was even higher, at 61 per cent.
I simply do not believe that that gives the public the protection they deserve. Those sentences do not deter career burglars for whom the occasional short stretch in prison has become an acceptable occupational hazard. That is why I propose a minimum sentence of three years for anyone aged 18 or over convicted of domestic burglary for a third time.
In addition, I hope that the courts will use to the full their new powers to seize burglars' assets. The prospect of long prison sentences, coupled with loss of their possessions, will, I have no doubt, deter many burglars altogether. Others will not be deterred, but at least communities will get a lengthy break from their criminal activities.
Five thousand more policemen to help catch burglars; new vigorous police tactics designed to take the offensive to the burglar; long sentences for persistent burglars; and the prospect of their own property being seized—those are my proposals to take on the burglar as has never been done before. I have no doubt that they will be warmly supported by the public.
I accept that there may very occasionally be cases where it would not be reasonable for the court to impose the minimum sentence. I therefore propose that the courts should have the discretion not to impose it in genuinely exceptional circumstances.
Let me summarise my proposals. Automatic early release from prison will be ended; anyone convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime will receive a life sentence; and persistent domestic burglars will receive mandatory minimum prison sentences of three years, and those dealing in hard drugs seven years. Those are deliberately tough sentences, designed to deal with serious, persistent and wholly unacceptable offending by individual criminals. I accept that they are likely to lead to an increase in the prison population: the necessary prison places will need to be built, and that will require extra resources. I believe, however, that we simply cannot afford not to take such action.
I intend to phase in the measures. The provision to deal with second-time serious sexual and violent offenders and drug dealers will be implemented as soon as possible after Royal Assent to the Bill. I intend to implement the provisions to deal with persistent burglars and honesty in sentencing two years later, as new prison places become available. I also intend to consult fully on the proposals contained in the White Paper, and I shall carefully consider the points that are made. Having done that, I propose to introduce a Bill giving effect to my proposals in the next Session of Parliament.
The first duty of Government is to maintain law and order—to protect people's freedom to walk safely in their streets and sleep safely in their homes. We have taken action to ensure that the balance in our criminal justice system favours the law-abiding public, not the criminal. The police have revolutionised the way in which they fight crime, targeting known and persistent criminals with impressive results, and the public are increasingly playing their part through neighbourhood watch, street watch and the special constabulary.
My proposals are intended to protect the public from those who persistently commit offences that cause particular public concern—serious violent or sexual offences, drug dealing and domestic burglary. They will ensure that, once caught and convicted, persistent and dangerous criminals are properly punished. The proposals are tough, and they should be: they are needed to protect the public and build a safer Britain. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in allowing me time to read the White Paper.
When he referred to the recent figures for recorded crime, the Home Secretary might have mentioned that in the past six months the level of recorded crime has begun to rise, and that in the past year the number of robberies

has increased by 14 per cent. Two thirds of the White Paper contains a useful summary of measures already taken and announced by the Government over the past three years; it is very disappointing that it contains no proposals to improve the operation of the youth justice system, which is unquestionably one of the weakest parts of our present criminal justice arrangements.
The Home Secretary has made much of the current lack of consistency and progression in sentencing, and he is right. Does he agree that chance plays far too great a role in sentencing today, as I pointed out in a paper that I published last week? How can anyone explain to the public that the chance of receiving a custodial sentence in a magistrates court can vary from one case in six in Staffordshire Moorlands court to one in 66 in a similar court in Berkshire?
Is it not deeply disturbing, especially to the victims of crime, that—according to figures that the Secretary of State has given me—the average prison sentence imposed on burglars remains the same, at 15 months, whether it is for a first, second or third offence? Is it not bizarre that the average sentence imposed on a third-time drug dealer—30 months—is two months shorter than the average 32-month sentence imposed on a first-time dealer?
Does the Home Secretary accept that, in large part, the lack of consistency and progression arises from the Criminal Justice Act 1991, for which he voted? That Act also cut the maximum sentence for theft and non-domestic burglary by a third. Is it not the case that, just five years ago, the Government decided to resist proposals from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to bring about greater consistency in sentencing?
The Secretary of State recently complained that the current sentencing system
makes a farce and mockery of the Courts".
Would he not be more convincing, however, if he recognised that that "farce and mockery" is almost entirely of his Government's making and a result of their failure in the past 17 years?
On the issue of consistency and progression, does the Home Secretary accept that his proposals deal directly with only a limited number of offences? Therefore, does not consideration need to be given to our proposals for the Court of Appeal to have a duty to issue sentencing guidelines, after public consultation, in respect of all the most common or most serious offences?
We support the principle of the Secretary of State's proposal on the way in which court sentences should be explained to the public and to victims—so-called honesty in sentencing. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proposal is not of itself intended to increase the overall prison sentence served? Will the ending of parole mean that there is no longer any assessment of risk before many long-term prisoners on determinate sentences are released?
My colleagues and I also support the principle that repeat rapists and similar offenders should receive indeterminate, reviewable sentences. We believe that there would be advantage in having a formally different regime from lifers for those offenders, as I think the White Paper accepts, but there needs to be further discussion on the matter.
To illustrate why we support the proposal, may I draw to the Secretary of State's attention a case to which the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone


(Miss Widdecombe), has already been alerted by one of my hon. Friends? In that case, a former spouse sexually assaulted his 11-year-old daughter and was gaoled for three years. On his release, he went almost immediately and raped one of his family's neighbours. He received a 12-year sentence. He is due to be released in June.
I understand from my hon. Friend that the police and the Prison Service are convinced that, on his release, the man will commit further offences against those people or others. So great is the danger that one of the families is having to be rehoused. I think that all hon. Members will acknowledge that that is intolerable. Reviewable, indeterminate sentences, proposed 21 years ago by the Butler committee, are needed and are strongly supported by us. Will the Secretary of State say, however, whether he thinks that the final decision might be made on application in open court and not necessarily by the Parole Board?
I refer to the Secretary of State's minimum sentence proposals. We do not argue with his purpose, which is to ensure that there is far greater certainty—for victims and offenders alike—that people who persistently burgle or deal in hard drugs receive appropriate tough, deterrent prison sentences. There are considerable doubts, however, about whether the Secretary of State's method will achieve his purpose.
The fact that, in the past 17 years, every previous Conservative Home Secretary has resisted inflexible minimum sentences may not persuade the current Secretary of State, but what has he to say of someone of whom he normally takes great notice, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs? On 20 February 1991, he said:
I do not like minimum sentences. They reduce the discretion of the courts, and all who practise in or know anything about the courts realise that human life spans an enormous width and that there are many degrees of blameworthiness.
Governments have resisted the idea of going down this slippery slope because if one case is allowed as an exception it becomes difficult to refuse other cases".—[Official Report, 20 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 311-12.]
That was exactly the Home Secretary's position just 16 months ago, when the House was told by his Minister of State that, in the Secretary of State's view,
The courts should be left to determine appropriate sentences in individual cases."—111[Official Report, 3 November 1994; Vol. 248, c. 1336]
What does the Secretary of State say to one of the many objections raised by previous Home Office Ministers, that inflexible minimum sentences
could result in juries acquitting more guilty men and women to avoid excessive punishment."—[Official Report, 20 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 349.]—
the view put in 1991 by the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) when he was Minister of State, Home Office?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman—we congratulate him on this—has come a long way since his party conference speech. Exceptions to minimum sentences were not mentioned anywhere in that conference speech, but they are now. They certainly will be necessary to avoid injustice, but what guidance will be given to avoid inconsistency and injustice?
I think that the whole House knows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has cut the Secretary of State's budget for each of the next three years. Will the Secretary of

State therefore confirm that that is the main reason why his principal proposals cannot begin to take effect until late 1999, and will not take full effect until 17 years after that? Will he therefore confirm that, after 17 years of this Administration, the public are expected to wait for many more years before they receive the protection that they unquestionably need?
After 17 years and 10 criminal justice Bills, public confidence in the criminal justice system has never been lower. The Secretary of State must acknowledge that these proposals represent a rejection of almost everything that the Conservative party has done on sentencing during the past 17 years. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that public confidence has collapsed not just because of inconsistency and lack of progression in sentencing?
Does the Secretary of State not understand that public confidence has also plummeted because, while crime overall in the past 17 years has doubled, burglary has increased by 150 per cent., rape has quadrupled and robbery has risen fivefold, convictions for all those offences are now far lower than they were in 1979? Does he accept that this much-heralded White Paper does nothing to tackle those problems?

Mr. Howard: As is so often the case with the hon. Gentleman, he huffs and he puffs and we are left wondering what his attitude to our proposals actually is. We thought that he might tell us just this once whether he was in favour of these proposals and whether he would support them. He made much of the need for greater consistency in sentencing but, as is so often the case with the hon. Gentleman and his party, he espouses the ends but denies the means. The way to obtain consistency in sentencing in the most serious of cases is to introduce precisely the proposals that are contained in the White Paper. We are still waiting to know whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the mandatory sentences.
Let me take the poignant case to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the course of his observations. He referred to what I think all hon. Members would regard as a dreadful case—a case of a man who, having committed an indecent assault and a rape, is now about to be released when everybody knows that he is likely to commit another offence.

Mr. Straw: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals on that.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman says that he agrees with my proposals on that, but only 10 days ago he issued a policy document that set out a quite different proposal.

Mr. Straw: No.

Mr. Howard: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman. He has a short memory. He has already forgotten the contents of the proposal that he put out 10 days ago.
Ten days ago, the hon. Gentleman said that there should be a presumption in favour of an indeterminate sentence. A presumption in favour of an indeterminate sentence is a far cry from an automatic sentence with exceptions only for genuine, very special, exceptional circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman cannot tell the difference between those two, he simply does not know what he is talking about. It was a very different proposal indeed.
We still do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the minimum sentences for persistent burglars or for persistent dealers in hard drugs. Those are at the core of my proposals to protect the public from the activities of such serious offenders. The hon. Gentleman now seems to wish to give the impression from a sedentary position that, for the most part at any rate, he agrees with the proposals. Let me remind him of not only what he said 10 days ago when he issued his policy document, but what he said about my proposals immediately after my speech at Blackpool.
On that occasion, he dismissed my proposals as
ill thought through and ill considered.
The hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), described my proposals as "daft". Either they are daft or the Labour party agrees with them. It ought to make up its mind which it is. The truth is that, as usual, the Labour party is at sixes and sevens. It does not know what to say or what to do.
The proposals will give the public the protection that they deserve, and it is about time the Labour party made its position clear.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I seem to have been listening to a debate rather than a statement, questions and answers. I insist that from now on questions are put directly to the Home Secretary briskly, and I am sure that they will be responded to in that spirit.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the proposals that he has outlined this afternoon will be welcomed in Harborough? Does he further accept that the concept of the minimum sentence is not foreign to our law and that the introduction of further proposals on minimum sentences should be widely welcomed by the courts and those who wish to benefit from the protection of the courts?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the introduction of sentences with both a minimum and a maximum, so that the well-behaved prisoner knows that he can serve the minimum, but the badly behaved prisoner who does not recognise his criminal behaviour may have to serve the maximum?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his support. My proposal achieves what he suggested in the second part of his question in a rather more effective way, by making it clear that a maximum of 20 per cent. remission can be earned by good behaviour. We make it clear to prisoners exactly what the consequences of good and bad behaviour will be. So I think that my proposal achieves the objective that my hon. and learned Friend desires.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to see the proposals earlier in the day. Now that we know that the shadow Home Secretary can be described as "Howard lite in a new blue can", will the Home Secretary tell those of us who are genuinely opposed to the substance of his

proposals why it has taken 17 years for his burglar alarm to go off? Why does he not spend between £400 million and £1 billion on something useful, such as preventing crime before it occurs, instead of on locking up people who could have been prevented from committing crime after it occurs? Does he really believe that it is in the public interest to request, as he does in the White Paper, that judges pass not longer but shorter sentences?
Where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman get his evidence for the claim in the conclusions of the White Paper that there will be a reduction of 20 per cent. in an element of the prison population as a result of the proposals? If, as he says, it will take four years to bring the proposals on stream, why did he not introduce them four years ago? If he says that sentences that are too short are being passed, why has not the Attorney-General appealed against more of the sentences passed in serious cases?
Finally, will the Home Secretary tell us why he believes that it is right to impose minimum sentences of seven years' imprisonment on small-time heroin addicts for sharing out drugs among themselves on three occasions? They need the treatment that the Government are not providing rather than these absurd, populist proposals.

Mr. Howard: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has at least made the position of his party absolutely clear. He has made it crystal clear that his party is opposed to the proposals. We look forward to continuing the debate on the proposals with members and representatives of his party up and down the country. We shall particularly draw the people's attention to the way in which he dismisses those who traffic in hard drugs—those who are convicted for a third time of trafficking in hard drugs.

Mr. Carlile: Answer the question.

Mr. Howard: I am answering the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I am explaining to him, if he will listen for a moment, what would happen if those who cause such desperate damage to others were dealt with in the way that he proposes. He referred to small-time traffickers in drugs.

Mr. Carlile: No—small-time heroin addicts.

Mr. Howard: These proposals are designed to deal with traffickers in hard drugs. It took only one Ecstasy tablet to kill Leah Betts and other victims of hard drugs. The hon. and learned Gentleman will, on reflection, be truly and deeply ashamed of the attitude that he has espoused.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he is doing precisely what the British people want, and that the only people who will oppose his measures are the friends of the lawless? The lawful will want the action that he has announced. Will he confirm that there will be absolute rigour and consistency in sentencing and that the force of the law will fall with equal weight on all criminals found guilty, whether in the north, the south, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I am sure that his assessment of the public mood is correct. These proposals are brought forward not simply


for that reason, but because they represent a careful and precisely targeted response to the worst crimes that afflict the public and will achieve greater protection for the public, which has to be our overriding priority. The protection of the public must be paramount. That is why the proposals have been brought forward.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will more prisoners serve longer in prison as a result of the proposals? If so, where will the funds come from, to make that possible? Will the Home Secretary tell the people of Birmingham and the west midlands what the measures will do to counter theft, robbery and car crime, which are still rising?

Mr. Howard: I certainly expect the proposals for persistent burglars and dealers in hard drugs to lead to longer sentences and to their spending longer in prison. The same would apply to those who had automatic life sentences passed upon them for second serious sexual or violent offences.
The outcome is less clear in relation to the honesty in sentencing proposals. Their purpose is to enable the public to see clearly the effect of the sentence that is passed so that they are not cheated, as so many people feel at present, by nominal sentences of 10 years that turn out to be actual sentences of five years. That is not through any fault of the judges, but is the result of measures that have been passed by Parliament over many years. That will be the net effect of the proposals on the length of sentences served.

Mr. James Couchman: I am sure that the public will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals, even if the Liberal party does not. It has been said that those who commit serious sexual or violent crimes for a second time and who can expect open-ended sentences will have the inhibition not to harm or even kill their victims removed from them. What steps does he intend to take to differentiate between the indeterminate sentences that will be passed on such a criminal as opposed to those who kill?

Mr. Howard: I can indeed answer my hon. Friend's point. Most people who have just committed a rape are unlikely to be behaving or thinking rationally. They are unlikely to draw the inference that he suggests could be drawn from the fate that might await them. If they were to be rational, they would know that they would serve longer in prison as a consequence of any further criminal act that they might be tempted to commit.
The position under my life sentence proposal is that the judge would decide how long would be served for retribution and deterrence. He would decide that the prisoner should serve five years, for example, and then there would be an assessment of risk, after which, if it was safe to release the prisoner, he would be released. If someone murdered after having committed a rape, the tariff imposed by the judge would be very much longer even than that which would be imposed in a case of rape.

Ms Janet Anderson: Could the Home Secretary explain why prison works? In the last six months of last year, as prison numbers rose, so too did recorded crime. Does he expect the proposals to result in a reduction in recorded crime?

Mr. Howard: We have seen a reduction in crime for the past three calendar years—only the third time that that

has happened this century. That coincided with a significant increase in the prison population of about 25 per cent.
Most people readily recognise that, given that a relatively small number of persistent offenders commit a disproportionately large number of crimes, as will be confirmed by any police officer, if those persistent offenders are effectively targeted, brought to justice, convicted and imprisoned, it is not at all surprising that crime comes down. That has been happening, and it has played an important part in the reduction in recorded crime in the past three years.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I point out that we ought to be looking not merely at the crimes that my right hon. and learned Friend counts, but, for example, at the reduction in drink-driving, which has saved 1,000 lives a year and has probably reduced serious offences by about a million a week? Changing the culture is important.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my congratulations on the honesty in sentencing proposals, which are important to the public? Can he make it plain that, if there are to be life sentences for the worst murders, one of the penalties for those convicted is that they will be in gaol for life, while those who will not be a danger to society might be released earlier?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with everything he said— I can do so without qualification. I pay tribute to the work he did while he was at the Department of Transport to reduce the number of drink-driving offences. Perhaps he will agree that one of the factors that played a part in that reduction was the availability of minimum mandatory sentences in that context. The fact that someone was certain to lose his or her driving licence if convicted of an offence while drink-driving played a significant part in the reduction in the number of those offences.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that most people outside this place and many in here—certainly on Opposition Benches—reckon that the White Paper is just a blatant piece of electioneering? Is he aware of the reality in constituencies such as mine? Seventeen years ago, the doors of most of the houses in the pit villages would have been open at night. After 17 years, they are locked up tightly some two and three times over, and they are kicked in at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning.
My constituents do not need the Home Secretary saying that crime is going down—they know the opposite is true. The social fabric is breaking down. The Government should not come here after 17 years and try to kid on the electorate that they have some answers to the problems. The truth is that mass unemployment and other social matters need to be dealt with urgently. This Home Secretary got elected to set the people free, and the prisoners got out.

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the fact that recorded crime in Derbyshire, which was rising for many years before 1979, fell last year. I hope that he will join me in paying tribute to the Derbyshire police for their part in achieving that result. On reflection, I hope that he will be able to support the proposals to help ensure that that trend continues.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The British public fully understand that crime is caused by criminals. Is it not the case that the proposals in the statement will mean that criminals will be removed from circulation for far longer and then the British people can sleep better in their beds, including in Derbyshire?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I associate Kent with Derbyshire in the context of his question. We have to take a range of measures across the board, of which longer sentences of imprisonment are only one aspect, to achieve a concerted attack on crime, which is what the people want.

Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Home Secretary explain how minimum sentences and maximum sentences are meant to act as a reasonable deterrent when, after 17 years of Conservative Government, the conviction rates are plummeting?

Mr. Howard: We need to improve conviction rates as well—and that is precisely what the police are doing. That is why it is important that the police use new methods of tackling crime, which they are doing to great effect; that is why it is important that we have more police officers, and we shall provide 5,000 extra police over the next three years; that is why it is important that we change the law to make it less easy for guilty men to walk free from the court, which we have done, despite the opposition of the Labour party; and that is why we intend to tackle these measures across the board, as I have indicated this afternoon.

Mr. Piers Merchant: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that ordinary citizens, including my constituents, will warmly welcome the measures that he has introduced today as bold and decisive? Does he agree that people are fed up with seeing criminals released early after inadequate sentences, and then seeing them commit the same or similar crimes again?

Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We know that the feelings that he has expressed are widely held, and I believe that they are also soundly based. By introducing these targeted and focused measures, we shall be able to make a significant impact on the crimes that cause our constituents the greatest distress.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The prisons budget is to be cut by 13 per cent. in the next three years. What will happen now under the new provisions? What are the estimates of the extra expenditure that is needed for prison purposes? Will this mean that the 13 per cent. figure will disappear?

Mr. Howard: No, the 13 per cent. figure is part of a drive to achieve improved efficiency in the Prison Service, as we are endeavouring to do across our public services. Some of the private prisons have shown that it is possible to provide effective services at a lower cost in our prisons. Of course, the extra prison places that will be required as a consequence of the proposals will have to be paid for—we do not shrink from that. If the hon. Gentleman looks at paragraph 13.8 of the White Paper, he will find that all the details are set out there.

Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I served as a lay magistrate

for 12 years before entering the House? Therefore, I understand very well the need for those involved in sentencing to have a degree of flexibility, to ensure that the punishment not only fits the crime but fits the criminal and the circumstances of the offence.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that sentences must also take into account public attitudes to all specific offences? A number of judges and magistrates have failed to do that, which has produced the current state of affairs and the need for the White Paper, which we warmly welcome.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's experience adds particular power and credibility to the point that he made. I am extremely grateful to him for his support. I think that his analysis will command widespread support.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Home Secretary's White Paper deals specifically with England and Wales. Will he be consulting the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland? During last night's debate, we discovered that people move around much more and that we have a problem in transferring prisoners because of different sentencing patterns between the two jurisdictions. Is the Minister in a position to give some direction to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the Crown Prosecution Service, which may have a problem in bringing forward cases for trial in the courts, which ultimately demoralises the police who apprehend the criminals?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my responsibilities extend only to England and Wales. My right hon. Friends who have responsibility for Scotland and Northern Ireland have been closely involved in the preparation of the proposals, but I cannot answer for Scotland or for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that while there will undoubtedly be a great deal of support for the fact that violent recidivists will be taken out of circulation for a longer period, there is another advantage in what he has announced this afternoon? With an ending of automatic remission and the introduction of indeterminate sentences, there will be a far greater incentive to the convicted person to co-operate with the prison authorities in his own rehabilitation.

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend; that is a very important part of these proposals. As he will know, we have introduced a new regime of structured incentives for good behaviour and penalties for bad behaviour in our prisons, and I believe that the proposals will reinforce the effect of those measures in encouraging good behaviour in our prisons.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Home Secretary recognises that rape is a very serious crime indeed. Why is it, then, that although recorded cases of rape have quadrupled since 1980, there have been fewer convictions than there were 16 years previously?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady raises a pertinent question, to which I do not think that anyone knows the answer. It is very important that we reviewed our criminal


justice system to ensure that the imbalance that had grown over the years, which had come to favour the criminal at the expense of the victim, was remedied. We have taken substantial measures to remedy that imbalance, notwithstanding the opposition of the Labour party, and I believe that, in time, those measures will achieve the object that I believe the hon. Lady and I share.

Mr. David Faber: Did my right hon. and learned Friend see a poll published this week which claimed that 87 per cent. of the population believe that the judges have lost touch? Could not the same be said of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), because presumably his only remaining ambition is to join their ranks? Given the disgraceful outburst that he made this afternoon, showing his complete lack of knowledge of drug abuse, should not the slogan of the Liberal Democrat party now be, "What's a little smack among friends?"

Mr. Howard: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and especially in relation to his slogan, with perhaps one exception. It is not entirely fair to say of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that he has lost touch; he was never in touch.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: The Home Secretary must know by now that the British public will realise that it is an admission of failure for a Government to legislate constantly on crime, even to the extent of repealing their own recent legislation. Will he please draw an elementary philosophical distinction between doing something about crime, in the sense of achievement, and always to be doing something about crime, in the sense of fiddling with the system—or perhaps I should say fiddling the system? It is time that we adopted a wider spectrum of approaches to the causes, prevention and detection of crime, as well as merely constantly chasing the dragon, like a legislative junkie.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my statement, he would know that I advance a comprehensive approach, which ascribes importance to preventing crime and such measures. We recently set up the new Crime Prevention Agency precisely and specifically to deal with that aspect of the problem.
I believe that it is essential to keep these matters under review so that we can learn from experience, and so that we can see what is working and what is not and constantly improve our approach. I believe that that is the task of Government; I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a radically different view.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on having the vision and guts to resist vested interests and on recognising that justice is there to serve the interests not of courts or judges, but of the people? Does he recognise that when the White Paper becomes law, people in Lichfield will sleep easier in their beds?

Mr. Howard: I very much hope that the proposals will play a part in helping people not only in Lichfield, but throughout the country, to sleep more safely in their homes, to walk more safely in their streets and to live in a safer Britain. That is the object of the proposals.

Mr. Max Madden: Is not the statement a fitting obituary for a rotten and morally bankrupt Government who, in the past 17 years, have created a tidal wave of crime, poverty and deprivation? Do not minimum sentences show that the Government have lost confidence in courts, judges and juries setting suitable punishments for crimes? Is it not also the case, as the Tory Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee said some time ago, that successive Governments have resisted minimum sentences because they represent a slippery slope?

Mr. Howard: As I have said, one must be prepared to keep the matters under review, to learn from experience and to improve the system. As to obituaries, I think that I am correct in saying that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to stand again at the next election. Therefore, his question may be taken as his political obituary.

Mr. Michael Stephen: I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to a statement made today by the Police Federation, in which it said:
We do not agree with the chorus of criticism from the judges. They should acknowledge their own responsibility for the current situation and they should not try to frustrate the will of Parliament".
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is time to put an end not to 17 years of Tory rule, but to 30 years of failure on the part of the judges to use the powers that Parliament has given them to protect the public?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I welcome the support of the Police Federation. When I assess the views of those who have commented about my proposals in the past—and who no doubt will do so again in the future—I believe that it is extremely important to pay particular attention to those who are at the sharp end and who have the difficult task of dealing with dangerous criminals on our behalf day in, day out and night in, night out. I pay particular attention to the views of the police when I consider those matters.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the Home Secretary confirm the accuracy of press reports that the Home Office is predicting a rise of 10,000 to 12,000 in the prison population? Are those figures based on the assumption that his proposals will lead to a 20 per cent. drop in offending? If that is so, upon what evidence does he base that assumption, as I have yet to see any evidence that tougher sentencing reduces offending—or on whether tougher sentencing is right or wrong as a means of punishment? If he has made those assumptions and they prove incorrect, the prison system will become so overcrowded as to be unmanageable.

Mr. Howard: It is true that my proposals are expected to lead to an increase in the prison population, and the details are set out in the White Paper. It is true also that we have made an estimate of the deterrent effect of sentencing along those lines, and it is the best estimate that we can make. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to see studies that have shown that greater certainty as well as severity in sentencing is likely to have a deterrent effect, I refer him to the studies by Beyleveld in 1980, Lewis in 1986 and Burnett in 1992—all of which support that proposition.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I have campaigned


for a number of years—both during my time in criminal law practice at the Bar and during my four years in this place—for precisely the sort of measures that he has introduced this afternoon. The victims of crime will particularly welcome the removal of automatic remission of sentences. The victims of crime and the general public want the sentence that is passed by the courts to be the sentence that is served.
Unless the Labour party supports each and every one of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals, the people will know that it is soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. They know also that the remarks of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—who talked about being soft on drug offenders—may be treated with nothing but contempt.

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. I suspect that we may have to wait a little longer to hear the Labour party's definitive position. However, there is no doubt about the position of the Liberal Democrats, which I believe will be of great interest to people up and down the country.

Mr. Alun Michael: Given his responses, how can the Home Secretary claim that his statement is comprehensive? Where are the proposals to prevent and cut crime? Where are the plans to catch criminals? That is what he promised us in the first paragraph of his statement. He has presided over the chaos that has seen only one crime in 50 punished by a court. Why does not the Home Secretary propose action, as we have, to get a grip on youth crime and to nip it in the bud instead of allowing it to drift until it is too late?
In his statement, the Home Secretary said that the average sentence for a third conviction of dealing in hard drugs is four years, with automatic release after two and a half years. What will the average be after his proposals are implemented, and from what date will his standard apply?
Finally, on honesty in sentencing, the White Paper states:
The Government does not expect these proposals to result in a general increase in the period of time offenders serve in prison.
Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that statement?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman mentioned helping to bring people to justice and reducing crime. He will remember that when we introduced proposals on bail, in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, his party sought to undermine those proposals.

Mr. Michael: Answer the question.

Mr. Howard: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question. When we introduced measures to change the right to silence in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 so that more guilty people would be convicted, his party opposed those proposals root and branch. So it is no use the hon. Gentleman asking where the proposals are, because they are now on the statute book, despite opposition from his party.
On the last two questions the hon. Gentleman raised, the answers are as follows. As is clear, a third-time offender for the offence of trafficking in hard drugs will serve a minimum sentence of seven years. That will be an honest sentence. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the average will be, but the minimum sentence will be seven years.
On honest sentencing, we have always made the position clear. The purpose of the honest sentencing proposal is to end a state of affairs in which the public are misled into believing that the nominal sentence passed by the court is the sentence served, when in truth the relationship between the two is very different. I want the public to know that the sentence passed by the court is the sentence served, and that is the purpose of the honest sentencing proposal.
I look forward in due course to a clear statement from the Labour party about its position on the proposals. On its response, we may be able to reach a considered judgment about the significance that we can attach to the rhetoric of which it is so fond.

BSE

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the emergency Council that has just concluded in Luxembourg, and related matters.
The high level of public concern over bovine spongiform encephalopathy continues to cause very grave problems, for farmers and for all parts of the food chain. The whole Government have been following the situation closely, day by day, in an effort to identify any problems as they arise and to find solutions.
It is clear that many of the problems faced by the beef industry are the result of precipitate decision taking by the European Union, in particular the decision to ban exports from this country, and what I can only describe as panic reactions by other countries. Many of the steps that have been taken against our exports have no justification on scientific grounds. I hope that soon normality will return.
I will come in a moment to the outcome of the Council, which ended this morning in Luxembourg. At home, my ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other members of the Government have kept in close touch with industry organisations, to obtain a full picture of what is going on in a fast-moving situation. We are meeting any organisations wishing to talk to us about how their members are affected.
There are encouraging signs that confidence is returning. In particular, I am encouraged by reports from retailers that their customers are looking for beef in the shops again. Retailers have met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and have reported that they need to begin buying beef again. So those with cattle to send to market should know that there are willing buyers for British beef.
From our discussions with supermarkets, it is clear that they would favour a quality assurance scheme based on identification of those herds that have had no cases of BSE, or on a computer system that could trace animals back to the farm of origin. We agree. My officials are working up some detailed proposals as a matter of urgency. The wholesale trade is beginning to return as a result of the revival of retail sales.
The Government recognise that one consequence of those developments that needs to be addressed immediately is a blockage in the slaughterhouse sector as a result of cash flow problems, which may be inhibiting the flow of meat through the system. The Government are determined to restore movement in the processing system, to enable market confidence to recover.
As an immediate but necessarily interim measure, I can announce that all slaughterhouses that continue to handle beef will with immediate effect be relieved from Meat Hygiene Service red meat inspection charges in respect of 1995–96 and for an interim period. My Department will seek additional resources to recover the loss of revenue to the Meat Hygiene Service through a supplementary estimate.
To quantify the difficulties facing the industry, qualified expert accountants are being appointed forthwith to provide urgent advice on the industry's immediate

problems and how they could be solved. Those solutions will be the subject of close consultation with the slaughtering industry. The Government are simultaneously approaching the banking industry to establish whether it would be prepared to extend trade indemnity credit insurance to underwrite the costs to the slaughterhouse sector of taking on new business.
I hope that I have by those means demonstrated the Government's commitment to maintaining the vital contribution of the slaughterhouse sector to the meat processing chain and to the essential immediate task of facilitating the flow of fresh meat through the system to meet retailers' and consumers' demand. Additional money will be provided to my Department's Votes to cover the cost involved.
We have continued to discuss with farmers the orders that we laid last week. As a result of those discussions, I have today laid an order amending the Beef (Emergency Control) (Amendment) Order 1996, to provide for the age of cattle to be determined either by dentition—the stage of development of teeth—or by reliable, independently verifiable documents. I believe that that will remove the main cause of uncertainty among farmers, and will help to restore the flow of cattle through auction markets and to abattoirs.
The public and retailers are rightly looking for reassurance that the process of slaughtering cattle and dressing carcase meat is carried out with the greatest possible attention not only to legal requirements but to general standards of hygiene. The Meat Hygiene Service has a crucial role. That agency, which was set up just a year ago, has performed a key part in our action against BSE since then. The agency's budget will need to be increased to cover the cost of additional staff, who are now being recruited.
In view of the heightened public interest, I propose to introduce a quarterly published bulletin, which will report the latest results of audits by the Meat Hygiene Service and the state veterinary service on compliance with meat hygiene regulations and enforcement action taken. I hope that that will demonstrate the continuing efforts that the UK meat industry is making progressively to raise hygiene standards in our slaughterhouses. I shall shortly be placing before the House performance targets for the Meat Hygiene Service for the coming year, which will need to reflect the additional duties resulting for the service from the new measures that I am announcing today, and those announced on 20 and 25 March.
I refer next to the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers that started in Luxembourg on 1 April and ended at 6 am this morning. Considerable efforts were made over two days and two nights by Minister Lucchetti for the Presidency and Mr. Fischler for the Commission, but I fear that the propositions on the table at the end of the meeting did not meet our central requirement that the export ban should be lifted. As our partners were not prepared to accept that decision, it was not possible for the United Kingdom to endorse the Council's conclusions. The BSE crisis has presented the whole Community with a challenge of major proportions.
The Community's response must be prompt and effective but also soundly based and fair. The United Kingdom is making a major effort to contribute to that Community response. Arrangements will be introduced to


ensure that all bovine animals over the age of 30 months at the time of slaughter will not enter the human food or animal feed chains. This scheme will take the place of the compulsory deboning for which SEAC recently called.
It is right that we should contribute in this way to solving the Community problems caused by the BSE crisis, but the UK also has the right to expect a fair and balanced response from our Community partners to the particular difficulties faced by UK producers. The Community's first response to the BSE crisis was the imposition of a total export ban against UK animals and products. That ban is not justified. It is not based on sound scientific analysis. It is disproportionate; it should be removed.
I made it clear that, in order to be acceptable to us, any Council conclusions must include either agreement to lift the ban forthwith, or a procedure and timetable to that end. It was not possible to reach such an agreement. I was therefore unable to endorse the drafts that were before the Council, despite the real progress that has been made. It remains my intention to work in co-operation with other member states and the Commission to find a satisfactory and rapid solution to the problems that confront us all.
Nevertheless, some progress was made over the past few days, and there are specific steps that we can now take, with financial support from the European Union. First, we shall make preparations to bring into effect as soon as possible the arrangements for cattle over the age of 30 months, as they come to market, to be slaughtered under special supervision and destroyed and disposed of in a safe manner. As a matter of urgency, I am considering with the Secretary of State for the Environment the options for the disposal of the additional waste that would arise from these measures. Our objective is to identify the best practicable option and to ensure that the waste is dealt with in a manner that protects the environment and human health.
I emphasise that this is not a compulsory slaughter scheme, in the ordinary sense of that phrase. The objective is to take older cattle, cows and bulls which come on to the market for slaughter at the end of their working lives, and to take steps to prevent them from entering the human or animal food chain.
Some attention was focused at the Council on the possibilities for selective culling of animals most at risk of BSE. I believe that some of our Community partners have exaggerated ideas of what is possible in this area, based on a misunderstanding of the nature of BSE. We shall, however, be giving further thought to the idea, in consultation with our farming organisations and others. We can proceed only if there are practical and cost-effective proposals.
The Community has taken important steps to stabilise market prices. Intervention support has been extended. The Council authorised purchases of up to 50,000 tonnes in the EU as a whole in April. The beef management committee met while the Council was in session to put that into effect. In Great Britain, the new categories eligible for intervention bring coverage up to 22 per cent. of total UK beef production. Meat will have to be from animals under 30 months of age. These changes will help to stabilise prices in the United Kingdom and in other member states. They will help to restore confidence to the UK beef sector and to restart activity in the slaughtering sector.
Lastly, with all the new developments of recent days, and those that I am now announcing, it is important that all concerned in the industry know where they stand, or can find out immediately if they are not clear. To meet that need, I have made arrangements to supplement the helpline service which my Department has been providing to deal with inquiries about BSE and the beef export ban. Staff will be on duty during the Easter holiday to deal with business inquiries. My and other Ministers' private offices will be on duty during the Easter recess to deal with queries and questions raised by colleagues.
In conclusion, I believe that the steps the Government have taken up to now rest on sound science. Our objective is still to take science as our best guide. Our senior adviser on the science, Professor Pattison, has told us that, with the latest steps we are taking, beef is for all practical purposes safe to eatc—safer than it has ever been.
I see signs that public confidence is returning, but the position taken by our European partners is unhelpful. The sweeping ban on our exports is unjustified, and the Government will continue to work by every means possible to get that ban lifted.
Meanwhile, with all that is being done by Government and by industry, British beef is a product of which we can be proud. We shall do all that we can to promote and to protect it.

Dr. Gavin Strang: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the deal that he has brought back from Luxembourg is the worst of all worlds, and that, once again, a weak Government who are isolated in Europe have completely failed to represent effectively Britain's interests in Europe? Is it not clear that, far from securing a complete package of measures to tackle the crisis, he is now expected to go back to Brussels with a proposal for an additional selective slaughter scheme?
Does the Minister recognise that the industry is now confronted with huge uncertainty? It has no idea how many additional cows the Government will condemn, no idea whether any new proposal for selective slaughter will be acceptable to our European partners, and no idea when Britain will again be allowed to export beef and beef products.
Will the Minister give us some idea of the number of cattle that are likely to be targeted under any new selective slaughter scheme? Will he give us some idea of the criteria that the Government are likely to take into account in deciding whether to slaughter individual animals or herds? Will he today give the House an undertaking that any slaughter under those policies will be carried out humanely? [Laughter.] I am surprised that Tory Members do not regard that as an important point, because many cattle will be slaughtered, and surely we want to ensure that it is done humanely.
Will EU funds will be available only for compensation to farmers—towards the cost of buying the cattle to be slaughtered—or can the funds also be used for the incineration and destruction of the carcases and for other expenses associated with these measures?
Will the Minister give the House some idea—there was nothing about it in his statement—of the total cost of all the measures to tackle BSE announced by the Government in the past two weeks, and will he tell us what will be the likely net cost to the UK after taking into account the reduction in our rebate from the EU budget?


The Minister advised the House last Thursday that the Lord President of the Council was to convene a committee to address the problems faced by abattoirs and by the wider rural economy. I have noted what he said about waiving red meat inspection charges in slaughterhouses, which I welcome, and what he said about making an approach to the banking sector to help slaughterhouses, but will he assure us that, following the deliberations of the Lord President's committee, he will still make a statement on additional assistance for our slaughterhouses and for the broader rural economy? Perhaps he can give me some idea about when we are likely to obtain that announcement.
Does the Minister agree that, although a selective slaughter policy may have a part to play, consumers will be confident that British beef is safe only when all the measures necessary to keep the BSE agent out of human food are in place, and are being effectively enforced? In that connection, I welcome what the Minister said about Government support for quality assurance schemes. The Prime Minister may shake his head, but I remind him that that was one of the seven proposals put forward by the Labour party last week, which he derided in the House. I welcome the Government's willingness to provide assistance for a quality assurance scheme.
I do not need to remind the House that the Government's record on enforcement of BSE controls is appalling. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, part of the agreement reached last night involves a requirement that those controls will be reinforced and that the state veterinary service will make additional inspections. In that context, I again welcome what the Minister said about the state veterinary service and the Meat Hygiene Service. Can he confirm that the Government will provide the required additional money not only to the Meat Hygiene Service, as he said, but to the state veterinary service?
Although I welcome the proposal for quarterly reports of those inspections, in the current circumstances, monthly reports might be more appropriate. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about hourly reports?"] I ask him to consider that. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Prime Minister may not like such a proposal, but it is an important issue.
Does the Minister agree that the industry and consumers cannot simply be left in limbo? Will he go back to the Commission to try to secure earlier meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers and of the European Union Standing Veterinary Committee with the view to reaching an earlier agreement with the EU on the measures that are required? Surely he recognises that it is quite unacceptable that we should carry on until the end of this month in the worst of all worlds.

Mr. Hogg: It is sometimes desirable for the House to focus on the main issues and that is why I am going to make some general remarks to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). Let me make the first one so the House can hear it clearly: the hon. Gentleman did not condemn the ban. More than that, on many occasions in the past few weeks, he has expressed his understanding for it. It is not surprising that in Europe we find a determination to keep the ban in place when people there hear members of the Labour party supporting it. I regard that as outrageous, and so does the farming community of this country.
Let me make another point of a general kind. The Labour party has said on many occasions that it is not prepared to stand alone on Europe. What does that mean in this context? It means that it will acquiesce in anything that is done to the destruction of our interests. The truth is that those abroad who have heard the hon. Gentleman's contribution this afternoon will take comfort and say that they are justified in imposing restrictions on British goods.
I shall make another point. The hon. Gentleman also asked what we have done to support agricultural and other interests. I shall tell him. We have brought to this country either the fact or the prospect of millions of pounds; we are waiving the Meat Hygiene Service charges; we have provided very satisfactory assistance for the renderers; last week, we provided financial assistance for farmers producing young bull calves; we succeeded in negotiating a very satisfactory intervention package; and we have secured the promise of hundreds of millions of pounds to support the implementation of the 30-month rule, and other funds are available. None of that would have been done had the hon. Gentleman been discharging my responsibilities.

Mr. John Biffen: I tender my respects to my right hon. and learned Friend for the stamina that he has shown in the past few days at the Council of Ministers. During that great ministerial marathon, when our partners proposed a more intensified policy of slaughter, did they also advance scientific and veterinary evidence to justify those proposals? If not, were the proposals designed to promote a restoration of consumer confidence? Was my right hon. and learned Friend able to point out that it is price that is restoring consumer confidence in this country, that it is price that will continue to restore consumer confidence in this country and that, in this context, we do not want another politically motivated, complicated, bureaucratic scheme for an intensification of slaughter policy initiated by those who do not have British agricultural or consumer interests at heart?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. First, I am grateful to him for his kind remarks as to the length and character of the discussions of the past two and a half days.
There may be a case for a tightly targeted selective culling policy to reduce the incidence of BSE, provided that it is clear that it is tightly targeted and will actually bring about a substantial diminution in the number of BSE cases. What is not justified is a wholesale slaughter of herds which may, to some small degree, have been affected by BSE. Should we contemplate such a policy, we would have to be clear, according to the scientific facts, that what we were doing was justified.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I agree with the Minister about three things. First, we agree that beef is safe. That view has been endorsed now that the World Health Organisation has today made its definitive pronouncement, and we hope that that information will be disseminated as widely as possible. Secondly, we agree that the best thing that we can achieve from negotiations is the lifting of the ban by the European Union. Thirdly, we agree that confidence is returning, although it has been so battered that it is probably only 15 per cent. of what it was before the crisis began.
If the Minister really wants to make sure that confidence returns as quickly as possible and that the ban is lifted as quickly as possible, may I suggest that the Government should do what he criticised the Europeans for not doing—take prompt and effective action? It is no good announcing today that, as a matter of urgency, there will be a slaughter of cattle more than 30 months old when that idea has been on the table—put there by us, and by others—for nine days. It is no good announcing today a quality assurance scheme as a matter of urgency when that idea has been on the table for eight days. It is no good announcing a credit guarantee scheme today when that idea has been on the table since at least the weekend.
The Minister has to understand that, if the Government act quickly, we can expect Europe to respond. Will he admit to the House that the lesson of the previous two days' negotiations has been that the more and the sooner we co-operate with our partners, the better and more effective their response will be? Will he go back to Europe as soon as possible, and show that he has done what he is still only talking about?

Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed what the House has heard many times—that British beef is safe and can be eaten with confidence. I am also glad that he endorsed the Government's view that it is essential for the European Union to lift the ban. Confidence is returning, and one of the reasons for that is the prompt action taken by the Government. As soon as we have been in a position to do so, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have made full statements to the House on a number of occasions, setting out the conclusions of the scientific committee, together with a range of measures that we were advised to take. It should also be borne in mind that we have implemented, promptly and fully, all the recommendations of the specialist advisory committee. That in itself should reassure the consumer about the safety of British beef.
We have also acted promptly in ensuring that money has become available from the European Union to provide substantial financial assistance for British farmers. Let me draw particular attention to the large intervention package that has been secured, and to the support for the endorsement of the 30-month rule.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: My right hon. and learned Friend has my sympathy. Does he agree that Ministers were absolutely right to make public announcements about the most likely link between animal and human disease, rather than attempting a cover-up or denial? Was he himself not right, at the beginning of the problem, to call for a selective slaughter policy to restore public confidence? Are the Government not right to seek, and to continue to seek, the support of our customers and colleagues in the rest of Europe, if we are ever to restore the export market for our beef that has been so profitable to this country?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has made an important point. I am grateful for her support.
We have an absolute duty to put considerations of human health above all others. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that we had a paramount duty to make a full

statement to the House. We had an obligation to the House, and nowhere else, to make the first statement about the conclusions that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee had reached and the recommendations that it was making. It may be fashionable in some quarters to suggest that reports should be made elsewhere first, but I do not accept that. The accountability of Ministers is to the House, and we shall always discharge that duty first, and above all others.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it true that we shall be paying back, over a period of years, large sums that are supposedly coming from a European source? If so, would it not have been better for the Minister to abandon his slightly disoriented bobbing like a cork between here and Brussels, and got on with finding both the money and the health measures to support the industry and customers? If he did that, random testing could go ahead, details of the destruction of carcases could be given to the industry and, above all, people would know how the ashes will be disposed of. If the Minister is entirely safe and secure in his knowledge of those public health measures, will he please get on with it and stop wandering around the continent?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady's first question related to the rebate. Labour Members would be well advised to acknowledge that the fact that we have a rebate of this kind is due to the determination of my noble Friend Lady Thatcher. Had it been left to the Labour party, we would not have a rebate to talk about.
Facilities are available for disposal. We have a comprehensive range of rendering and incineration plants. As I made plain in my statement, disposal will be undertaken in a safe and proper way and in accordance with measures that have been considered in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Does the Minister realise that, although his announcement today of assistance for slaughterhouses and of the banks' involvement is welcome, the effect could be serious for the infrastructure in some rural areas? I am thinking of a wider group than, say, slaughterhouses. Hauliers and markets could be badly affected. At the same time, the bad effects could be much more regionalised. Will he try to avoid considering the problem in a broad, overall way? He should realise that the bad effects are especially likely to be felt on the west side of England and in Wales and Scotland, for instance, where the bulk of livestock are to be found.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend, who knows an enormous amount about the industry and who has represented its interests with great distinction in a number of capacities, is entirely right. My right hon. and hon. Friends are conscious of the possible consequences for the infrastructure of rural areas and for various industries and economic communities associated with the agricultural community. Because of that, we are watching carefully the impact of this crisis. The waiving of Meat Hygiene Service charges, which was announced in my statement, is one clear example of the way in which we have responded.
My right hon. Friend makes the point that we should be alert to differences between rural areas and regional areas. I was enormously helped in my negotiations in


Brussels by Lady Denton, who represents the Northern Ireland Office interest, and by Lord Lindsay, who represents the Scottish Office interest—they played a considerable part in what happened in Luxembourg. I am most grateful to them.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome, on behalf of my colleagues, what the Minister has done to date for the beef industry, but the crisis has been calamitous for Northern Ireland, where we are so dependent on the beef industry. We do not believe that the intervention that is on offer will be sufficient to take us out of the difficulty. While the Minister's officials are considering the possibility of quality assurance schemes, may I remind him that every animal is tagged and computer recorded? In addition, there are quality assurance schemes in Northern Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The ban must be negotiated away.
Our erstwhile European partners have been motivated by self-interest and opportunism to seek advantage for themselves. Will the Minister consider getting good British beef, whether it is from Ulster, Scotland, Wales or England, on the move where there is already quality assurance, while further schemes are being introduced?

Mr. Hogg: I appreciate the considerable importance of the beef industry to Northern Ireland's economy. That was one reason why I was grateful for the presence of Lady Denton, who represents the agriculture interest in the Northern Ireland Office. The hon. Gentleman is right when he draws attention to the characteristics of beef management in Northern Ireland, which go a long way to making it one of the finest parts of the UK's beef industry. In particular, he draws attention to tagging and to the management of beef.
The hon. Gentleman is wholly right to say that it is vital to negotiate the ban away. He has my undertaking that we shall do our utmost to bring that about at the earliest possible opportunity. He makes some interesting points about especially well-protected herds. I shall consider that specifically to find out whether it offers a way forward.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that any reasonable person will know that, in the past few days, he has been fighting desperately for the farming industry? Does he realise that the panic reaction started with the disgusting speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) from the Dispatch Box?
May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend about one specific issue—very small farms, especially those in the west country—which was not covered in his statement? The intervention of the banks will obviously help, but, often, some of the farmers who need help most will have the least equity to assist the banks in granting further loans. Will he therefore consider the position of farms that are stuck with calves and beef which are readily available for export, which they cannot move and for which there is not necessarily a market in Britain? Those people will need considerable help from the Government as soon as possible.

Mr. Hogg: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks—compliments from him are compliments indeed. I agree with his comment on the

speeches—there have been a number of them—of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). They have done considerable damage to the integrity of British agriculture and to our reputation, although that is a much lesser matter.
As to small farms, especially those involved in the dairy and beef sectors, my right hon. Friend is right. We shall of course keep a careful eye on particular sectors, whether they be regional or part of a particular industry such as agriculture. I think that he will accept, however, that the important thing is to try to restore market confidence and, through that, to ensure that there is a restoration in prices and movement of beef through auction houses and marketplaces. What I announced last week with regard to the premium in young bull calves will be of particular assistance and value to his constituents. The substantial enlargement of the intervention policy, which we were able to secure in Luxembourg, will be of particular value to those constituents. I hope that, when it works out, he and I can agree on that.

Mr. Harry Barnes: This is a serious situation that calls for statesmanship. Our Front-Bench spokesman asked a series of questions regarding further regulations, and not one of them was answered. The Minister blew his top and gave us a rant. Will he reconsider now? He will have notes on all those questions. Will he give the answers to which hon. Members and my constituents are entitled? Pits in my constituency have been destroyed by the Deputy Prime Minister and the farms are due to be destroyed, so we need serious answers to serious questions.

Mr. Hogg: In the last two weeks, I have had the pleasure of standing at this Dispatch Box on three occasions—I have made two statements and I opened a debate last Thursday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has done likewise. We had the pleasure to appear before the Select Committee for Health and the Select Committee for Agriculture for about six hours, in the course of which we answered many questions. The hon. Gentleman should read the record more assiduously.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware that Conservative Members have total confidence in the way in which he has conducted the negotiations, but is he also aware that there is a growing loss of confidence in the integrity of the European Union Ministers with whom he is trying to negotiate? If, despite Britain's efforts, the worldwide ban continues much longer, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will consider its legality?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks as to confidence. He is indeed right when he refers in those terms to the action of some overseas Ministers. It is important that we secure a lifting of the ban. The justifications for the imposition and the maintenance of the ban are not based on logic or science, and we are looking earnestly and urgently at the legality of what has been done.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the specialist accountants, who are to tell us how much damage has been done in our constituencies, look specifically at the problems of the specialist beef producers, people who are not dairy farmers—to whom


culled cows are an additional aspect of income—but whose entire income is caught up in livestock; people who cannot market their cattle; people, perhaps on the hills, who cannot sell their cattle? Will instruments such as the hill livestock compensatory allowance, which exist to help such people, be used?
Has the Minister seen the report from TSB Scotland, which estimates that, even with a 25 per cent. decline in demand, there will be 6,000 job losses throughout the food chain in Scotland? Does he know that that report also said that the way forward was a specifically Scottish policy response to mitigate the scale of the disaster?
When the Minister was unable to persuade our customers to lift the ban, did he then, as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) recommended, go down the route of arguing that the quality assurance schemes in Scotland, Northern Ireland and elsewhere can be used to identify cattle as BSE-free? Can they get through the ban until such time as all cattle can be identified as BSE-clear? Every single producer in my constituency to whom I have spoken during the past two weeks has agreed that only by declaring them BSE-clear can cattle from Scotland or elsewhere be marketed with confidence in the future.

Mr. Hogg: On the narrow question that the hon. Gentleman asked regarding accountants, their purpose is to look to the abattoirs. On the broader question of the prosperity of the Scottish beef industry, I am happy to say that, while I was in Luxembourg, I had the resolute assistance of my noble Friend Lord Lindsay, who has responsibility in this matter and who was acting on the express instructions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is deeply concerned.
We are looking closely at what we can do to address the question of quality herds. There may well be steps that we can take in that direction, but most important of all is the need to restore market confidence and urgently to provide financial assistance. In that context, the package of intervention to which I have referred, and the action that I announced last week with regard to young bull calves, is of particular importance.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that many British people look ill on criticisms offered by Ministers in Europe from countries where BSE is not even a notifiable disease? How do they know how much BSE is in their own country? Before they try to cast the mote out of the British beef industry's eye, they should cast the beam out of their own.
I thank the Minister for his tribute to the Ulster beef industry, but does he remember that our economic structure is built around that industry and that Northern Ireland is worse off now because of this crisis than any other part of the United Kingdom, because 70 per cent. of its beef is exported, and that trade has come to a standstill?
The present stocks in storage are worth £26 million. They are not moving at all. They cannot be guaranteed to be from cattle under 30 months old. Will those stocks come under the new rule, and will clearly defined help be given to the meat processing industry to get rid of those stocks, to empty the stores and to get the herds that are being fed and overfed on the farms to the abattoirs for slaughter and for export?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has made a formidable case for the quality of British and Northern Irish beef. The quality of Northern Ireland beef is well known to hon. Members and is an essential part of the economy of the Province. It is for that reason that I was so pleased when I was in Luxembourg to have the assistance of my noble Friend Lady Denton.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right when he makes the point that we in Britain have a range of controls relevant to the issue which are better than those that operate in most countries abroad, most particularly with regard to the disposal of specified bovine offal and the controls relating to feeding material for cattle. In those two respects, our regime is infinitely better than those on mainland Europe, where there must be many cases of undetected BSE. I am sceptical about the extremely low figures that are formally reported.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Secretary of State comment on the work of Dr. Harash Narang, the Newcastle virologist who, in the early 1990s, developed a test for BSE in live animals? Is that not the very kind of test that we now need, so that, instead of destroying whole herds, we can destroy only individual animals carrying the BSE virus?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a test for live animals would be a great advantage in the control of BSE, in terms of animal health and protecting the human food chain. Unfortunately, we do not have such a test at the moment and the best advice that I have is that there is no sensible prospect of our having one in the near future. I wish that that were otherwise, for the reasons set out by the hon. Gentleman, but the best advice that I have been given is that there no immediate prospect of one.

Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we recognise how hard he has battled in an extremely difficult situation, not made easier by the precipitate action of the European Commission, which has now made it difficult in the short term to remove the ban? My right hon. and learned Friend was right not to rush into some additional agreement on the slaughter policy, which could have been catastrophic for a large section of British agriculture and which would have been impossible to explain to Britain, or, perhaps, in the courts.
As we are not in the short term to have the assistance of our partners in Europe, the answers and the solutions to how to restore confidence now lie with ourselves. With the good sense of the British people, that will return, but it will take time. During that time, we must ensure that the fabric of the industry in all its aspects is, as far as possible, kept in being so that the restoration of confidence can be met by a continuing industry.
In that respect, my right hon. and learned Friend will have to deal over Easter with a raft of different questions from all sections of the industry, which, at the moment, have no answers to many difficult questions about which they are concerned. I am sorry to hear that he will be working over Easter, with his colleagues and the officials in the Department, but it is right that he should do so, in order to ensure that we have answers to as many questions as possible and that farmers, hauliers, slaughterhouses and everyone else involved have somewhere to go to get the answers that they need.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is right. I am sure that the precipitate action of our European partners has been


one of the major causes of the lack of confidence. I agree with him on the importance of an early removal of the ban.
My right hon. Friend is also right when he says that confidence will return, but it will take some time to return; therefore, he is also right when he draws attention to the need to maintain the fabric of the industry in the meantime. It is against that background that I was anxious to secure, and did secure, an extended intervention package, which he knows about. That is why the Government are looking to the financial support that is available for implementing the 30-month rule so as to buy in the old milking cows, for example. My right hon. Friend will also recall what I said last week about financial support in respect of young bull calves.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we have some of the figures for which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) asked? Taking the rebate into account, what would the net cost to the United Kingdom have been if the Minister had been able to settle on a 70 per cent. rather than 80 per cent. EC contribution and a general settlement? What is the margin that we are arguing about, without taking into account the additional requirement placed on us for a general slaughtering of the herd?

Mr. Hogg: I cannot answer that question in the broad because there are so many elements within the spending policies. There is, for example, spending on intervention and spending in support of the 30-month rule. There would be spending if we went down the road of a highly targeted slaughter policy such as I have described. A range of spending would be possible. Unless and until I have the costs of carrying out the specific programme, I simply cannot answer the question that the hon. Gentleman posed.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: My right hon. and learned Friend has earned the thanks of the House for the tenacity with which he has pursued these difficult negotiations. We know that his aim is to restore confidence and underline the fact that British beef is safe. In that respect, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider a credit insurance scheme which would ensure payment to those who trade in cattle and beef products? Such a measure would help to bring confidence back to markets.

Mr. Hogg: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for his kind remarks, especially as he knows as much about agriculture as any person in the House. What he said about credit is of importance. I said earlier today that the Government were approaching the banking industry to establish whether it would be prepared to extend trade indemnity credit insurance to underwrite the cost to the slaughterhouse sector of taking on new business. That is adopting the type of approach that he has been good enough to suggest.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is this not an inadequate and complacent statement? What comfort does it give to an abattoir in my constituency, Woodhead Brothers, which has laid off 70 people and has 200 people on part-time working? All that the Minister offers is relief from meat hygiene charges. The slaughterhouse in my

constituency wants compensation for loss of earnings, loss of stock value, redundancy costs and so on. The statement is inadequate.
Safety is a related matter. Is it not the case that Ministers gave parliamentary replies earlier this year which confirmed that people from the veterinary service visited slaughterhouses between September and December last year and found that 48 per cent. were handling bovine offals inadequately? In the light of those facts, how can the Minister possibly come here and invite the British people to express confidence in British beef?

Mr. Hogg: I think that most hon. Members will find a certain mismatch between the hon. Gentleman's comments. He correctly says that the abattoir in his constituency has seen a dramatic fall-off in business, with the consequences to which he has referred. The reason for that is loss of confidence. Why do we have a loss of confidence? There are a variety of reasons, but one is alarmist allegations, such as those made by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), which are not put into proper context, and which are damaging to confidence. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will be well advised to suggest to him that he thinks rather more carefully before he opens his mouth.

Mr. John Greenway: Did the other Ministers in the Council give any assessment of the state of the beef market in other member states? Why is it that, in spite of this wholly unforgivable ban on British beef, the market for beef in other member states remains depressed? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the ban itself has created a loss of confidence in British beef? Is it not about time that the rest of Europe recognised that the measures that he has announced today mean that beef from Britain will be the safest in Europe?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. There has indeed been a substantial fall in beef consumption across the European Union. One of the reasons for that lack of confidence is the imposition of the ban. That was one of the arguments that I urged on member states during the council meeting in Luxembourg. It adds powerfully to the argument that the ban should be lifted. My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about agriculture as he represents a constituency which has powerful beef interests, is entirely right when he says that the quality of British beef, the safeguards taken in the industry, the controls in the slaughterhouses and the controls on the preparation of animal feed are in most respects infinitely better than those that can be found in most places on mainland Europe.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: As 90 per cent. of all agricultural activity in Wales is in the livestock sector, I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the tremendous impact that the loss of confidence in the beef industry has had on people in Wales in the farming, slaughterhouse and meat processing industries, and in the wider rural economy. He will therefore understand my pressing him further on the need to obtain early agreement in Europe to lift the ban. What further measures does he consider reasonable to meet concerns that might be felt in Europe? Will there be urgent discussions before 29 April so that we can be sure that when that meeting comes, we shall be in a position to move forward significantly to lift the ban, even if we cannot do it before then?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the serious consequences that have flowed from the crisis in the beef industry, for the rural part of Wales. What he says about that is wholly right. He also asked specific questions—whether there would be urgent discussions and whether action would be taken between now and the Agriculture Council fixed for the end of April. The answer is yes. There will be very many discussions at official and, if necessary, other levels to impress on our European partners the urgent need to lift the ban. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured on that point.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I declare an interest, as I have a suckler herd. Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that there is a world of difference between using culled cows for a different purpose and the compulsory, and, as he admits, unnecessary, slaughter of healthy working herds which, in some instances, have been kept by families for generations? If the European Union, in its arbitrary, unaccountable way, forces our farmers to make such a cruel sacrifice to the European gods, it will be remembered for many a long year.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the distinction between the slaughter of cull cows—that is, cows that have reached the end of their milking careers—and the slaughter of herds for other reasons. He would probably agree that it is desirable to reduce the incidence of BSE in herds. Because he has a logical mind, he would agree that it is at least desirable to find whether we can work out with our scientists and experts whether it is possible to determine those herds which, for various reasons, are most at risk. If we could do that, it might be justifiable to pursue a highly targeted slaughter policy in respect of some such herds to reduce the incidence of BSE.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister accept that the real bottleneck in the system is in companies such as Highland Meats of Saltcoats in my constituency, which are packed to the ceiling with meat that has been boned, chilled and packaged ready for supermarkets or export and for which there is no market? What is in his statement to assist such companies to clear that blockage so that, when confidence recovers, there is somewhere for the farming industry to sell its products?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked my point about the evidence that there are some signs of market confidence coming back. That is the most encouraging thing at the moment. If there is movement at

supermarkets and other retail outlets, the blockages will be removed. That is the only way to provide continuing prosperity in any industry. He should, in the first instance, observe the extent to which market confidence is reviving.

Sir Colin Shepherd: Is not the quickest way to get back to firm foundations to reassert the scientific foundation for the argument? If that is re-established, the export ban could be more easily lifted. What steps are my right hon. and learned Friend and his officials taking to persuade the European Standing Veterinary Committee to reassess the matter on the basis of scientific knowledge? Secondly, will he keep a close watch on consumption? If it should be that the apparent resurgence of market confidence is not being sustained other than by severe discounting, and that his intervention scheme is not sufficient, will he consider the introduction of a make-up scheme?

Mr. Hogg: We shall clearly have to keep consumption and confidence under careful review. I hope that one of the consequences of what I announced today and at the end of last week, and what was asserted in Luxembourg, may go some way to restoring confidence. If it does, and market confidence picks up, it will have a dramatic effect on the prosperity of the industry.
My hon. Friend is entirely right to assert the importance of resting policy on science. He rightly asks what steps we are taking to ensure that those who advise European institutions, especially the Commission, are in possession of the scientific information. Throughout last week, we had experts in Brussels who were consulting with those who advise the institutions of Brussels and we shall ensure that that contact continues. Indeed, I made it absolutely plain to the Ministers around the Council table that I was anxious that they should be put in possession of the all the relevant scientific information that I had at my disposal, and that will be done.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Questions on the statement have ended.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Chemical Weapons Act 1996
Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996

Victims of Communism (Commemoration)

Mr. Harold Elletson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Her Majesty's Government to establish a permanent memorial to the victims of Communism; and to promote appropriate methods of honouring their memory.
Outside the infamous Lubyanka building in Moscow, tucked away on the edge of what was until recently known as Dzerzhinsky square, is a small memorial to the victims of Stalin's labour camps. To my knowledge, it is their only memorial and it lies on the cold earth like an unvisited gravestone in an untended cemetery.
Political executions, deliberate politically determined famine and the appalling conditions of the labour camps killed millions of people in the Soviet Union. One Russian historian, Roy Medvedev, says that 12 million people were executed. Another, Dmitri Volkogonov, says that 22 million were either executed or died in the camps. Robert Conquest, quoting Soviet statistical work, says that 8 million people died in the famine of the 1930s, which was caused by the brutal policy of forced collectivisation. Stalin said:
One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.
Those are Soviet statistics. How many millions died in the cultural revolution in China? What of Korea, Albania and Romania?
Few people have been brought to trial for the crimes against humanity committed by communist regimes throughout the world against their own people. In those countries lucky enough to have thrown off the shackles of Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and other forms of Marxism, there has been no effective process of decommunisation in the way that Germany was denazified at the end of the second world war. By ignoring the past, we learn nothing from it and are probably condemned to repeat it.
Communism is stronger now than at any time since the fall of the Berlin wall. Chinese destroyers fire missiles at targets in the straits of Taiwan and threaten a democratic republic as free elections are held. In Russia, the Communist party, resurgent and unrepentant, is mounting its challenge to President Yeltsin with reawakened vigour. North Korea looks menacingly over its border to the south. Communism is not dead; it continues to present a greater threat than any other ideological system to the traditional freedoms of western civilisation. Its historical record shows it to have been more destructive and brutal than even the Nazi tyranny, yet its crimes are forgotten and the threat of its re-emergence is ignored.
It is 50 years since Winston Churchill made his famous speech to the students of Westminster college at Fulton, Missouri, in which he warned that an iron curtain had descended across the continent of Europe. The fact that that curtain has been lifted is due in no small part to Britain's resolute opposition throughout the cold war to communism and everything that it symbolised. Our victory in the cold war, the break-up of the Soviet Union and re-emergence of the nation states of eastern Europe as independent democracies was a triumph of which Great Britain can be

proud. It was achieved by our determination to remain strong and unyielding in the face of evil, despite all the protestations of left-wingers, so-called peace campaigners and fellow travellers.
History will remember the west's victory in the cold war as the greatest achievement of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. That victory should be celebrated along with the other proud moments in our history when Britain fought off tyranny and championed the cause of freedom, but it should be celebrated in a different way, because the enemy has not been finally vanquished. Totalitarian ideologies such as communism or fascism cannot be entirely destroyed once they have begun to seep into the well-springs of human consciousness. They continue to hold their poisonous allure and, at times of crisis, the vulnerable, the weak and the desperate are drawn to them. That is why we must remember the past and commemorate those who suffered or were sacrificed. My Bill seeks to provide for a permanent memorial to the victims of communism.
It is right that there should be such a memorial in this country. British troops fought to prevent the consolidation of the Bolshevik regime during the Russian civil war. They fought for freedom against communism in Korea and during the Malayan emergency. Britain was at the centre of resistance to communism during the cold war.
There is another reason, however. Britain became a refuge to hundreds of thousands of people who fled from communist regimes, so we should have some permanent memorial. Thousands of Chinese, Hungarians, Poles, Ukrainians, Baits and Czechs came to Britain because they were driven out of their own homes and countries. The freedoms that they had known ceased to exist and they fled to this country to make new homes in towns such as Leeds, Bradford and Manchester. They found a refuge here from the political system that had destroyed their families, friends and nations, but they have no memorial, no garden of remembrance, no cenotaph and no public recognition. There is no church service for them; no civic reception; no two minutes' silence. It is time that Britain gave them a permanent memorial to everything they lost and everything we have to cherish by the preservation of our freedom.
I do not intend to suggest what the memorial might be—perhaps a simple sculpture in a public park or a much grander project, such as a museum or an archive which could preserve the experience of those who died, fought or suffered. It might also record those who sought to explain, apologise or collaborate—those many prominent leftists and other fellow travellers who, by design, wickedness or naivety were prepared to see their country go the way of Hungary or Czechoslovakia.
My Bill would also require the Government to promote other appropriate methods of honouring the victims of communism. There could be no more appropriate method than for them to ensure that the truth about communism, about those who suffered and still suffer under it, about those who excused it and about those who heroically resisted it is taught in our schools. The left-wing political correctness that has progressively crept into some of our schools, driving British heroes such as Nelson, Wellington or Churchill into the margins of history text books, should be replaced by history lessons that teach the lessons of history.
The history of communism in the 20th century is a history of bloodshed, suffering, misery and evil. We must ensure that that dark period of human history is never forgotten. A memorial to the victims of communism would help us lest we ever forget.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Matthew Banks, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Bernard Jenkin and Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva.

VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM (COMMEMORATION)

Mr. Harold Elletson accordingly presented a Bill to require Her Majesty's Government to establish a permanent memorial to the victims of Communism; and to promote appropriate methods of honouring their memory: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

Orders of the Day — London Regional Transport Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

REPORTING TO PARLIAMENT, ETC.

'In section 34 (annual report) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, in subsection (3)—

(a) after paragraph (b), there is inserted—
(bb) include details of any agreement entered into or continuing during the year in question under the provisions of section 3(2A) or 3(2B) above, together with a general description of the purpose and scope of each such agreement;"; and

(b) in paragraph (c), for the words "section 3(2)" there shall be substituted the words "section 3(2), 3(2A)(a) or 3(2B)".'.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 24, after `out', insert
',with the consent of the Secretary of State,'.
No. 4, in page 2, line 2, at end insert—
'(2) After subsection (8) of that section, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(8A) Where the consent of the Secretary of State is required to any agreement entered into by London Regional Transport under the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament notification of his consent together with a general description of the purpose and scope of any such agreement, not less than one calendar month before the agreement is to come into effect.".'.
No. 8, in clause 4, page 3, line 14, leave out `34(3)(c),'.

Mr. Spearing: New clause 1 concerns the visibility of the decisions taken by London Regional Transport and the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be. Quite apart from the merits of this important Bill and what it may permit, the new clause, which is in two parts—one requires additions to the annual report and the other requires the consent of the Secretary of State to any agreements—will essentially give visibility, as I think we can all agree. I hope that it will at least attract the Government's sympathy and assent in principle, because it pursues their advertised policy of open government.
To argue the case for the two safeguards, I have perforce to talk a little about the agreements that would have to be reported under the new clause in London Regional Transport's annual report and the other sort of agreements that I believe—and which the House should believe—the Secretary of State should have the power to assent to. Alas, to argue the merits of the two safeguards, some description of the Bill is necessary, without which it is impossible to understand their importance.
The intention behind the Bill is to


extend, and facilitate the exercise of, the powers of London Regional Transport to enter into and carry out agreements; and for connected purposes.
That is the long title of the Bill, which further emphasises that the agreements are at the centre of the legislation.
In shorthand, the Bill extends in certain respects London Regional Transport's power over and above the powers that it has in existing legislation. It adds to the London Regional Transport Act 1984. Section 3(2) of that Act reads:
London Transport shall have power to enter into and carry out agreements with any person for the carrying on by that person, whether as agent for London Regional Transport or otherwise, of any activities which London Regional Transport have power to carry on".
As one might expect, it gives London Regional Transport the power to contract for those persons for those purposes.
Section 2(1) of the 1984 Act gives London Regional Transport the general duty to
secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London".
Clause 1 of the Bill extends the agreements in two ways. It adds two powers to section 3 of the 1984 Act. I shall paraphrase because the Bill is complex. The first is to have power with the consent of the Secretary of State
to enter into and carry out an agreement with any person for the carrying on by that person (`the contractor') of any activities which London Regional Transport does not have power to carry on if the agreement includes provision for one or more of the following".
Constitutionally, the Bill is extraordinary, because it extends the existing powers granted to London Regional Transport under the 1984 Act without specifying what the activities should be, providing that one or more of three criteria are covered in the agreement with the said person or contractor.
This is a legally permissive Bill that allows lawyers, contractors and London Regional Transport a doorway to walk through into territory that is not perceived and might be unknown. For that reason, the nature of the agreement ought to be included in the London Regional Transport annual report as my new clause provides.
The remarkable thing about clause 1 is that it includes three necessary criteria in relation to the contractors. The first is the carrying on of activities that are already under the power of London Regional Transport. The second is the provision by the contractor of
services ancillary to the provision of public passenger transport services",
which goes beyond the present Act. The third criterion is the most remarkable. It concerns
the use by the contractor of land or other property owned by London Regional Transport, or transferred to the contractor by London Regional Transport for the purposes of the agreement.
I shall deal with the merits of that later. That is the legal outline of the Bill—it is the first type of agreement, with rather complex criteria.
As the Bill says, the agreements are within the consent of the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Secretary of State has to consent to them. As the Bill stands, London Regional Transport does not have to lay anything before Parliament about that, nor does anything have to appear in its annual report—unless the Government agree to this change.
The second sort of agreement is even more remarkable in constitutional and legal terms. The proposed subsection (2B) provides:

Where an agreement has been entered into under subsection (2) or (2A) above, the powers conferred on London Regional Transport by that subsection include power to enter into and carry out other agreements with other persons".
There is a cascade of these two sorts of agreement, with two sorts of contractor. It is remarkable—London Regional Transport can enter into and carry out this second type of agreement with other persons for the purpose of
(a) fulfilling any condition which must be fulfilled before the agreement can have effect; or
(b) satisfying any requirement imposed by or under the agreement.
In other words, there is a labyrinth of agreements for purposes that are outside the scope of the present Act. For those reasons, the consent of the Secretary of State is wanted not only for the first set of agreements but for the second set of agreements. This presents a possible scenario that must be made public. I shall use the analogy of doorways to a remarkable legal labyrinth, which could give powers to the Secretary of State, to London Regional Transport and to a contractor for all sorts of activities that are not related to the provision of public transport.
The Minister for Transport in London quite openly said in Committee and in the notes on clauses—but it is not stated in the Bill—that this is to facilitate the use of what is known, in the jargon, as the private finance initiative. The private finance initiative allows private money—from banks or investment agencies—to be used for public purposes to finance, design, build, maintain and operate any public facility for which the contract with the money lender, the bank or the credit house is available. That is tremendously important these days, because we hear about these things in many respects, even in relation to hospitals. Perhaps in the future it will relate to roads—I do not know. The PFI is now a big thing in local government and there are attempts to use it to provide all sorts of public facilities, of which public transport is one.
The Minister was very kind and answered a question that I submitted for answer yesterday. It is not yet in Hansard—I believe that it will be printed in a big version that will come out shortly. I asked for details of how visible the public finance initiative agreements would be. The Minister provided the following answer:
The London Regional Transport Bill does not require London Transport or its subsidiaries to publish information about their projects under the Private Finance Initiative. Invitations to tender will continue to be published where this is a legal requirement.
I do not know what the legal requirement is—in other words, they may not be visible at all. The answer continues:
I understand that London Transport will normally announce the award of such contracts, giving an indication of their value and duration where this information is not commercially sensitive.
We know that, very often, information on contracts of this sort is commercially sensitive.
The answer continues:
When a contract ends, assets transferred from London Transport to the contractor at the beginning of the contract will generally be transferred to a new contractor, or will revert back to LT until a new contract can be let. Assets no longer needed by LT may remain with the contractor, and LT already have powers to make such disposals.
I submit that that answer suggests that we would not get the visibility that the new clause and the consent of the Secretary of State would like if it is laid before Parliament.


I suggest that, without these safeguards in the legislation, all sorts of things will happen—there will be a cascade of agreements for purposes that are not necessarily known or clear. That is why amendment No. 4 states that consent should be laid
together with a general description of the purpose and scope of each such agreement".
I refer to agreements of both sorts.
I hope that the Minister—purely on the merits of public visibility, of open government and of the arrangements that we may come to in later amendments—will agree to my proposal. Without it, how can we tell what is going on? This also applies in relation to the annual report, because it will show the use of powers that Parliament is giving the Government.
If we give powers to the Government, they should have a responsibility to tell us how they are using them, both in respect of London Regional Transport's annual report and the use of the Minister's powers when he gives consent under the Bill. He should be accountable to the House for that agreement. That is covered in amendment No. 3. Such matters should be laid before Parliament. I hope that, purely on the merits of open government, the Minister will give a nod in the direction of the new clause and these amendments—perhaps better ones could be made in the other place. In any event, public visibility is absolutely essential.

Mr. Peter Brooke: The new clause is called "Reporting to Parliament". Yesterday, the Secretary of State answered a written question on crossrail, a project that was always envisaged as requiring private finance and thus, presumably, falling within the scope of the Bill. Some hon. Members might think that crossrail would have been a fit subject for a statement rather than a written answer.
I was tempted to put down a private notice question, which may or may not have been accepted by Madam Speaker. However, I did not, because I recognise how much business the House has to discharge today and because Ministers at the Department of Transport, in a manner not universal in other Departments, have earned a considerable fund of good will in the House as a result of the regularity with which they have kept hon. Members fully informed of developments in their Department.
Both Madam Speaker and the Leader of the House periodically invite hon. Members to use their ingenuity in raising certain matters on certain business. Crossrail is a serious issue. The House is due to rise later today and I would be grateful if the Minister for Transport in London, when responding to the new clause, gave those of us who are London Members a greater reassurance than was available in the bald question and answer yesterday.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I strongly endorse everything that was just said by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who in a sense picked up on the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who tabled new clause 1.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South spoke of openness and transparency. It is extraordinary that the Bill, which contains powers for London Regional

Transport to enter into money-raising ventures with outside organisations under the Government's private finance initiative, contains nothing relating to crossrail.
6 pm
Yesterday, an announcement should have been made to London and Londoners, via a written answer, that a project that the Government have consistently supported—certainly for the past two years, every time that the issue has been raised with them—has in effect been axed. That is scandalous, not least because £150 million of taxpayers' money was spent on the feasibility study.
A vast body of opinion in the capital city—in commerce, in industry, in the financial sector, among commuters in London and among millions of commuters who, morning and evening, travel into this city to their place of work—regarded crossrail as part of a properly integrated public transport system that would begin to solve the problems of transport and traffic. It is unacceptable that that body of opinion should have been sloughed off.
The Secretary of State for Transport made no statement to the House. Had he done so, that would have allowed London Members, who obviously believe that their constituents' interests have been betrayed, and hon. Members with constituencies outside what might be deemed the Greater London area, justifiably to question him about why what we understood to be a promise—a strong commitment by the Government—has been reneged on.
It is almost farcical that we are debating a Bill called the London Regional Transport Bill in the light of the fact that crossrail—which all who have an interest in this city and its transport would have argued was integral to the proper expansion of London Regional Transport, which I understood was what the Bill is about—has been taken away without any presentation to the House. It is nothing short of scandalous.

Mr. David Chidgey: As has been said, the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is about openness in the Bill, and he should be congratulated on the assiduous way in which he has looked through the Bill.
The main question is, however, why should we debate a Bill that will not be used to any effect? I refer to the comments by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) about crossrail.
It is a scandal that we are in the ludicrous position of trying to pass a Bill that would allow London Regional Transport to use the PFI to create better transport for London, to provide a major artery connecting the City to Heathrow for the first time, yet here we are in a position in which the Bill can no longer be used to implement such a scheme.
I shall leave further remarks until later in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have been very tolerant. The new clause is headed "Reporting to Parliament, etc."

Mr. Brian Wilson: I hope that your tolerance will last a few more minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously, we hoped at some stage of the


proceedings to mention crossrail, which is very relevant to the Bill, and to some extent the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) set the hare running. If the Minister is to discuss the issue, I hope that a few remarks of my own can be accommodated before he does so.
The Bill is a mouse of a Bill, which may already have had more parliamentary time on the Floor of the House and in Committee than it warrants. The contrast with other, far more controversial, pieces of legislation is obvious, but so is the contrast between the treatment of the Bill and the failure of Ministers to come to the House to explain, and face questions on, the apparent collapse of the crossrail project.
Whereas the Bill may facilitate some useful but modest joint ventures between public and private sectors within the activities of London Underground Ltd., the abandonment of crossrail is an enormous issue for London and beyond and at least £150 million of taxpayers' money has been squandered, yet no opportunity has been offered for the House to hold Ministers to account. I hope that at least a small voice will emerge from the House tonight, to the people of London especially, that the Labour party at least believes that the priorities with which we are confronted are entirely wrong.
Tonight we should be holding Ministers to account for the collapse of crossrail to facilitate the utterly unwanted privatisation of Rai1track. I regret that we do not have the opportunity to do so in a more procedurally correct way than we are attempting to follow at present. I, too, will leave my further remarks on the subject until later in the proceedings, but it is important, as the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South rightly raised the crossrail issue, to place on record at this stage the fact that we, too, believe that it is absurd to discuss the Bill without discussing crossrail.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I never cease to marvel at the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), which he demonstrated admirably today. I, in my naivety, came prepared to discuss the Bill—a mistake that I make all too frequently in the House. I have on occasions instructed officials in the Department that it would be appropriate for all officials other than those concerned with the subject of the Bill to attend, because the ones who know something about the Bill are never required, whereas one frequently wants to call on all the others.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister not admitting a structural weakness in his Department, if the people who know something about crossrail are different from the ones who know something about London Regional Transport?

Mr. Norris: The issue is that I came prepared to discuss the mouse of a Bill—the Bill that the hon. Gentleman and I know will make modest improvements to the ability of London Regional Transport to enter into several PFI and related projects—and to discuss the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), which I am sure enjoy the hon. Gentleman's full support. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I had known that you would show the tolerance to which I suppose I should have become accustomed in the years of sitting under your chairmanship, I might have come better briefed to deal with crossrail.
Let me deal with the substance of the issue in passing. I would have deeply regretted feeling that I had shown discourtesy to the House in the matter of crossrail, and it would indeed have been a discourtesy, had my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South in effect said something that was at variance with the oft-repeated line that we have taken in relation to crossrail.
The line was that it was important, in the capital city of London, for these major capital projects to emerge sequentially, first, because of the cost implications of running more than one mega-project at a time in the city—bill costs are classically about —500 million a year—and, secondly, because of the disruption, of which my right hon. Friend will be well aware, that might be caused to this city if more than one such project were running at a time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South will be prepared to admit—I suggest, somewhat at variance with Opposition Members—that in the past few weeks London has had some extraordinarily good news. We had the very good news that the Jubilee line extension is still on track to open on 28 March 1998. I shall be there, and I hope to see you there too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well as many of my hon. Friends. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will cut some ribbon or slice some cake on that occasion.
In addition, my right hon. Friend will know that we hope thereafter to see the completion of the Thameslink 2000 project—a £600 million project. Thereafter, we shall embark on the channel tunnel rail link extension, with the tens of thousands of new jobs that it will bring, especially to east London and Stratford—a fact which I had hoped that the hon. Member for Newham, South, if no one else in the House, would have acknowledged with pleasure. It is appropriate, therefore, that we should make it clear that the right time for crossrail to start—for the record, we remain committed to that project—is as the channel tunnel rail link project ceases.
My right hon. Friend made it crystal clear that crossrail will follow the channel tunnel rail link—no more and no less. In an ideal world—or the world of fantasy finance inhabited by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—it might be possible to assume that all the good things will come at once. The hon. Lady always makes great addresses to the House without having talked first to the Opposition Treasury spokesman, her hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). Were she to consult him, she would find him rather less than forthcoming on the issue of running several projects of that scale in London. Indeed, he would be hard pressed to countenance the level of investment that we have seen in London in the past 10 years.

Ms Glenda Jackson: rose—

Mr. Norris: I shall complete my point, as the hon. Lady might like to reply to it. I do not propose to detain the House; I simply wish to respond to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will not allow the Minister to detain the House on that subject. I have shown more than usual tolerance. The Minister must now return to new clause 1, which is before the House for consideration.

Mr. Norris: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Logic suggests that you are correct, and that those who


have sought to divert the debate are trading too much on your customary courtesy. Leaving clearly on the record the Government's commitment to the scheme and the rationale behind my right hon. Friend's statement—both of which, if one looks at them independently and objectively, are perfectly rational and are evidence of a well-structured policy—I now turn happily to new clause 1 moved by the hon. Member for Newham, South.
The new clause requires LRT to include in its annual report not only a description of the purpose and scope of any agreement entered into under new section 3(2A) but a similar account of any subsidiary agreements that are entered into. The hon. Gentleman should understand that the existing legislation requires LRT to report any contracts which have been entered into that will affect the co-ordination of public passenger transport services. That is the qualification on the obligation to publish. In clause 4(2), the Bill extends the requirement to publish similar contracts—those that are made under the new powers—in the same way as those contracts made under the old powers. To the extent that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about ensuring a continuity of the duty to publish, I am happy to reassure him that that provision is contained in clause 4(2).
I fear that new clause 1 is unduly onerous—I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great supporter of London Regional Transport, so he will understand why I say that. For example, it would require the publication of the details of contracts that are, quite rightly, commercially confidential. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that is not a cloak under which Ministers can hide, but a perfectly proper commercial arrangement that ensures that LRT is able to go about its normal commercial activities. For example, new clause 1 would affect the contractor's financial backers in relation to any arrangements that LRT might make under the Bill. Therefore, I believe that the new clause would not sensibly extend the powers of disclosure, but would prove extremely unhelpful to LRT.
As to amendment No. 3, proposed subsection (2B) in clause 1 enables LRT to enter into subsidiary agreements with persons other than the contractor to allow a main private finance initiative deal to be achieved. It is important to bear that in mind, as it is the cornerstone of the Bill. It follows that some of the projects that we envisage will result from the PFI shall involve contracts of considerable value. Therefore, we believe that it is reasonable for both LRT and the contractor's financiers to be able to give each other a direct assurance in respect of their rights if the contractor should default for any reason. LRT has no powers to enter into such agreements under the London Regional Transport Act 1984—hence the need for the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment proposes that those subsidiary agreements should be subject individually to the consent of the Secretary of State. As it stands, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to give his prior consent to any agreement that LRT proposes to sign under proposed section 3(2A). In giving that consent, the Secretary of State has powers under existing legislation to impose conditions that could, in theory, extend to cover the details of any financial issues. Therefore, it is difficult to see what additional protection the amendment could provide.
In practice, I think that the small print in the contractor's financial arrangements is best left to the experts to determine. Without casting any doubt on the immense abilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I do not think that he needs to be involved in details of that sort. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting—to put it simply—that the House is capable of managing the affairs of LRT. The House is obviously not in a position to do so, and it should not attempt it.
As to amendment No. 4, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's eagerness to be kept fully informed of all developments regarding LRT, particularly its PFI projects. However, he should consider the additional time and cost involved if the amendment were accepted by the Government. LRT is presently able to enter into major, high-value contracts—whether for conventional projects, such as the Central line trains deal or train refurbishment contracts, or PFI projects, such as the Northern line trains deal—without notifying Parliament. In some cases, LRT may have sought the agreement of the Secretary of State before authorising the project, but there was never any requirement to notify Parliament. I believe that the existing arrangements for advertising major projects—whether PFI or conventional schemes—are perfectly adequate.
6.15 pm
LRT advertises its major commercial opportunities publicly in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It usually announces publicly the award of major projects, giving an idea of their value and duration when that information is not commercially sensitive. That is the correct way to advertise: to attract potential bidders at the outset and to inform passengers at the conclusion. Hon. Members are also in a position to ask questions if they require further information about a particular project. I see no value in imposing an obligation on the Secretary of State to notify Parliament in all cases when he has given his consent under section 3, and to do so before the agreement has been concluded.
In light of the reassurances that I have given about the publication of information about PFI contracts, I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South will feel able to withdraw his motion.

Mr. Spearing: With the consent of the House, I shall refer in passing to the questions regarding crossrail, on which perhaps the Minister could comment later. He referred to contracts, but I have heard nothing so far that would prevent London Regional Transport from entering into a big contract with, shall we say, crossrail plc to construct the central part of the line from Paddington to Stratford—the Minister is correct in saying that I would welcome such a project—under the Bill. Perhaps we can deal with that issue on Third Reading.

Mr. Norris: I remind the hon. Gentleman of our original discussion concerning the purpose of the "mouse of a Bill", to quote the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Wilson: Do not be harsh.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman must know that I am his good friend in the House. That is the ultimate kiss of


political death and, having delivered it, I return to the point that I am making to the hon. Member for Newham, South.
Nothing in the Bill alters the fundamental obligation placed on London Regional Transport by the London Regional Transport Act 1984 to—I shall paraphrase the legal language—provide or ensure the procurement of public passenger transport services in London.
The hon. Gentleman referred to an agreement that London Regional Transport may enter into with crossrail—he mentioned a body such as Crossrail plc and, for the purposes of the argument, we shall forget about Railtrack and assume that such an entity will emerge with a plan to deliver the scheme. That plan could be delivered under the provisions of the 1984 Act.
The disclosure provisions—including the disclosure of commercially sensitive information—would be precisely those that apply at present. The Bill extends into those areas where LRT previously had no power—where services provided by contractors are ancillary to the main services provided by LRT, but which will involve LRT as a partner in the agreement. That is the key to the hon. Gentleman's point and I hope that on that basis he will see that his crossrail line of questioning is, to some degree, misdirected.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for that most interesting and lengthy intervention. I am reminded of the famous phrase about the lady protesting too much.
I have used crossrail as a test case of the visibility and reportage of agreements, but I see from the Bill that agreements can be made containing provision for
the carrying on by the contractor of such activities as are mentioned in subsection (2) above".
Subsection (2) is, of course, in the existing London Regional Transport Act 1984.
We have to leave the argument here, but I cannot see why a project for a crossrail plc could not be reported to the House and why the consent of the Secretary of State is not possible. I shall pass over the merits of crossrail, but given the possibility of its construction by a contractor, I still think that the Bill might be rather more than a mouse. The Minister has not yet convinced me that it is not a mouse of a Bill.
On the question of reports to the House under new clause 1, the Minister claims that we cannot require them because of commercial confidentiality. We now know that if contractors, in the health service or anywhere else, have to bid for projects, public accountability is prevented by the chasm of commercial confidence. I understand the Minister's reasons, but they make accountability all the more important.
On amendment No. 3, the Minister claimed that the Secretary of State would not have to give consent to the second layer of agreements because LRT and the contractor would deal with them. We do not know how big those contracts will be and I find the Minister's explanation unconvincing.
On amendment No. 4, the Minister claimed that the notifications do not need to be laid before the House. They do not include confidential or financial information, since amendment No. 4 states:
the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament notification of his consent together with a general description of the purpose and scope of any such agreement, not less than one calendar month before the agreement is to come into effect.

What is the Secretary of State afraid of? The Minister said that we need not worry because the notification will be laid in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Why cannot it be laid before the House? I find the Minister's explanations unsatisfactory.
I hope that our discussion about the visibility of such matters will provoke debate elsewhere and I hope that it has been useful, if only on the subject of crossrail, and for the public who own the railways at the moment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

EXTENSION OF GENERAL POWERS

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 13 and 14.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 19, leave out `transferred' and insert 'leased'.

Mr. Spearing: Amendment No. 1 follows conveniently on the discussion we have just had. I do not understand the need to include in the Bill the paragraph that provides that, provided a contractor is involved in such activities as are mentioned in section 3(2) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, he can make use of the PFI and the secondary layer of agreements that we have discussed. Why is that provision in the Bill? If it was excluded—as amendment No. 1 would provide—what effect would that have? I suggest that it would cut out a privatised or contractualised crossrail.
The Minister and I have much in common in applauding the addition of the new sections of the Jubilee line to London's transport. We have seen parts of the work and I visited a station in my constituency only last week. I suspect—I hope that the Minister will reply if he can—that under the proposed section 3(2A)(a) of the 1984 Act it would be possible for London Regional Transport to contract out the Jubilee line. That decision could be made, perfectly legally, by 50, or perhaps 55, people at 55 Broadway.
What a line that would be, because it has been built at considerable public expense. That is halfway to happening on the Northern line already. I think that the Bill would make that possible. Amendment No. 1 is a probing amendment, since it would remove proposed section 3(2A)(a), because I believe the Bill would allow such contracts to be made. Moreover, when such contracts had been made and following the transfer to the contractor by LRT of land or other property, the proposed section 3(2A)(c) would allow
the use by the contractor of land or other property".
Again, the Minister and I differ in our view of the operation of privatisation. If a contractor takes on an underground line—the Deputy Prime Minister was not far from suggesting that, according to the press reports—the contractor may have to take on a liability, because the line may not pay its way. We know that there is a degree of public subsidy of London transport. So the Government would have to provide some form of incentive. We know that the incentive for the fast rail track to the channel tunnel is a considerable transfer of land. In other words,


use of the PFI in capital projects for London's underground railways, which is clearly in the Government's mind, cannot occur without some sort of incentive. That would involve a procedure under which assets would also be handed over. That is what the Bill will do. The inclusion of the proposed section 3(2A)(a) will mean that the existing railways, or indeed crossrail, could be run by contractors, under the existing powers of LRT.
Amendment No. 2 would change a transfer of property to a lease. Again, it is a probing amendment to ask why land would be transferred to a contractor—presumably as freehold for development. Why could such land not be leased and kept as the property of LRT and the people of London? I await the Minister's reply with interest.

Mr. Chidgey: I am puzzled by the intention of amendment No. 1, because it would appear to preclude LRT from undertaking the subcontracting activities that the Bill sets out to permit. If so, we should be debating whether or not the Bill should progress. I take the point of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the difference in terminology between transferral and leasing. I would feel concern if property assets could be permanently transferred to a contractor, and particularly about the acquisition of profits through the disposal of property assets. I would insist that any profits accruing from surplus land and assets through development should be reinvested in London Regional Transport, rather than go to a third party.

Mr. Norris: I am glad that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) is confused by amendment No. 1, because so am I, and I was glad to hear that it was a probing amendment—which I treat as one that we are not expected to take overly seriously as to its effect.
If I have a vestigial grasp of the point that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was attempting to make, amendment No. 1 is undesirable because it would make parts of an agreement under new section 3(2A) subject to the Secretary of State's consent while those made under existing section 3(2) could be made without his consent.
It is almost certain that in practice the contractor would seek the Secretary of State's consent if there were any doubt about the contractor's vires in the matter. Amendment No. 1 would achieve nothing, but it would create confusion which is wholly avoidable by not accepting the amendment. The hon. Member for Eastleigh was entirely right to make that point.
Amendment No. 2 is much more serious. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Newham, South that assets transferred to a PFI contractor should revert to LRT at the end of the contract, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said. The purpose of clause 2(1) and (3) is precisely to ensure that LRT's claim on essential assets at the end of a PFI contract can be safeguarded and continuity of service protected. On Second Reading, I emphasised that those provisions exist precisely because LRT needs to safeguard continuity of service and to keep property at the end of such contracts.
The proposal to confine LRT to a lease is extraordinarily naive. It would be perfectly possible for LRT, if it were so minded, to sell instead of a freehold a long leasehold for a peppercorn for the equivalent capital sum. We should not follow the suggested path in respect of leases. Nor should we be diverted from the fact that the essential protection that the hon. Gentleman seeks is already in the Bill.
Where assets are surplus to LRT's needs, it already has a power to dispose of them. If the assets were in the control of the PFI contractor, it might be perfectly sensible to allow the contractor to remain in possession for an appropriate consideration.
Amendment No. 1 would not achieve the hon. Gentleman's purpose and would cause confusion. I therefore hope that he will seek leave to withdraw it. As for amendment No. 2, I confirm that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are already covered by the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: I disagree with the Minister in respect of leasing, but I will concentrate on amendment No. 1, which has been derided as unnecessary and curious. The Bill's purpose is to allow a PFI to be used not just for additions to LRT's existing role as a peripheral or ancillary but to permit a contractor to move into core activity—perhaps including running an entire railway. The Minister's refusal—he can call me confused if he likes—reinforces my suspicion that the Bill could be used for that purpose.

Mr. Norris: If the hon. Gentleman invites me to call him confused, I will do so. He is confused. LRT already has the power, under the 1984 Act, to deal with circumstances of the kind that the hon. Gentleman described. Central to the speeches of the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Newham, South and of other Opposition Members on Second Reading was that the Bill was not to be seen as a back-door facility for privatisation.
I told the hon. Member for Newham, South that the uncomfortable truth was that to the extent that such powers might be necessary, they are contained in the 1984 Act. I do not seem to be able to get it through to the hon. Gentleman, which is probably more my fault, that his arguments are not relevant to the Bill. The scenario that he described might have been debated in 1983 in preparation for the 1984 Act, but it is not relevant now.

Mr. Spearing: The problem with the Government is that time after time legislation is produced which appears to be sensible, in pursuit of and of assistance to public service but ultimately—particularly when legislation is extremely confined and dense in its wording—other things happen. In Committee, the Minister referred to
the rather misleading story told by the hon. Member for Newham, South, whose encyclopaedic knowledge of the system may not quite have caught up with the existing make-or-buy policy operated by London Transport specifically within London Underground. Under that policy, we decide in relation to each measured area of activity whether it is better in terms of value for the user and the taxpayer for the facility to be procured from outside or provided in-house."— [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 27 March 1996; c. 21.]
The Minister said that LRT's existing powers could be used for a crossrail plc, but we know that there would not be such a thing—or improvements to any other line—unless facilities exist under the PFI. We know what


happened when contractorisation occurred in relation to signalling and track: there were escalating signal delays and point failures. I believe that the Bill would make it possible for PFI to enter core activity, which is not possible under the existing legislation. That could occur under the 1984 Act if crossrail were a public project, but the Bill concerns the PFI and the incursion of private capital—including, as we have seen in other parts of the country, Wisconsin Central or a water company—and the private operation of part of London Transport.
The amendment was not intended as a serious amendment to the Bill; it was designed to find out the Minister's intentions. I hear what he says—that he does not intend to use the Bill in the way I have explored. The Bill may not be a huge animal—my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) may be right to call it a mouse—but the people of London are so used to bad legislation on health, traffic or anything else that we have learnt to scrutinise Bills rather carefully. The language of this Bill is obscure and legalistic, so we must beware.
All I can hope is that the debate will at least have laid to rest some of the suspicions entertained by the Minister's supporters, if not those of Opposition Members.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

SUPPLEMENTARY TRANSFERS OF FUNCTIONS

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
'(2A) In subsection (2)(b) above, "supplementary, incidental and consequential provision" does not include any financial provision which has not previously been approved by the House of Commons.'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 2, leave out 'subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either'
and insert
'laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each'.

Mr. Spearing: Amendment No. 5 relates to the curious power exercised in respect of the second set of contracts, under which secondary functions can be taken on by a contractor. In such cases the Minister is empowered to pay for anything that goes wrong. The exact words are:
make such supplementary, incidental and consequential provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient.
We shall deal later with amendments seeking clarification of the wording; at this point I just want to know how much the Minister envisages being paid.
My amendment declares it desirable not to
include any financial provision which has not previously been approved by the House of Commons.
Without that, we might find ourselves in some difficulty.
Amendment No. 7 relates to the powers of Parliament. Proposed section 31B(5) states:
A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Of course, it is possible to pray against such instruments, when the arrangements of the House permit that, but I suggest that it would be more reassuring to allow for the affirmative procedure in this case. If an instrument is nodded through, well and good. But if a transport matter needs debate—nowadays, that is done in Committee—my amendment would provide a secondary safeguard in respect of this labyrinthine Bill. Transport matters do not always get the scrutiny they deserve.

Mr. Norris: The first amendment would place an unreasonable burden on the Secretary of State. We are dealing here with supplementary, incidental or consequential provisions. That being so, I do not believe it right for the Secretary of State to be placed under a duty of the sort that the amendment suggests.
As for amendment No. 7, there is plenty of precedent for the negative resolution procedure—it would be entirely usual. Indeed, it is not unknown for there to be no parliamentary involvement at all in this sphere.
Section 27(4) of the 1984 Act provides—except in the case of powers taken under that Act or any statutory provision amended by it—for statutory powers to be transferred by means of a transfer scheme, prior to the sale of a business belonging to LRT, without any parliamentary scrutiny. We have not followed that precedent. There is scope for parliamentary scrutiny of orders under new section 31B, but I frankly do not think that the affirmative resolution procedure is justifiable. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for that explanation—it is always useful to get the Minister's reasons on the record. That is what my proposed amendment has achieved. I cannot say that I agree with the Minister's reply. Indeed, I am sorry that he did not agree to the affirmative procedure, which I regard as superior. However, I will leave it at that.
The Minister did not deal with the point about expenditure incurred by a contractor for an emergency or a deficit. If a second contractor finds himself unable to continue with, say, railway track, signalling, communications or ventilation service—I showed in Committee that such services may be contracted out—I would like to be certain that the liability incurred is not unlimited but will be paid for out of a contingency fund voted to the Secretary of State for Transport by this House in a Finance Bill and relevant appropriation Bill. In that way it would be visible to Parliament, and would thus constitute a necessary safeguard.
I will readily give way to the Minister if he wants to deal with this issue. Meanwhile, he talked about a burden on the Secretary of State. I do not see how prior approval by the House amounts to a burden. The Public Accounts Committee, and this House in pursuit of the stewardship of taxpayers' money, would be wise to require such approval. I repeat my offer to give way to the Minister so that he can explain why the provision is unwise. I believe that it would protect tax money and the travelling public in London.
I note that the Minister remains seated. I can only hope that his silence will be noted elsewhere.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 41 to 43.
If the issues raised by my amendments had been unimportant they would not have been selected by the Chair. We come finally to what may be a lacuna in the Bill. I mentioned it in Committee, but received no satisfactory answer. I shall read out the relevant words of the Bill to get the matter straight.
Proposed section 31B(3) reads:
This section does not apply to any function of London Regional Transport under this Act or any other statutory provision specifically amended by any provision of this Act.
That appears not to apply, then, to the core activity. But line 29 says:
the Secretary of State may by order provide for any functions of London Regional Transport under any statutory provisions to be exercisable by that person (whether to the exclusion of or concurrently with London Regional Transport).
If the clause is to achieve its purpose—which, because of the Minister's silence, I am not too sure about—there will be difficulty, in court at least, because those phrases are mutually incompatible, although I may have got that wrong or misread the clause. There may be a perfectly simple explanation for the confusion.
If we are to get our legislation right and ensure that it is not only clear but seen to be clear, we must ensure that it can be understood by people who read it. If hon. Members cannot understand it, how can we expect the public to be able to do so? I hope that the Minister will tell us that, even though a lawyer may be able to understand it, that anomaly will be dealt with at a later stage in the Bill's passage.

Mr. Norris: There are times when even those as prolix as myself recognise that there is a value in silence. On this amendment, I merely point out that it is a pièce de résistance, even by the standards of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), as it has the totally perverse effect of allowing the transfer to a contractor of LT's principal functions under the London Regional Transport Act 1984. Thus, for example, the amendment would allow LT to transfer its duty to
provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services.
The amendment would allow LT to facilitate someone else setting fares and service levels.
It may be that we are witnessing a Pauline conversion of unprecedented proportions—

Mr. Wilson: It is new Labour.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman suggests that this may be a manifestation of new Labour. If new Labour has suffused even the depths of the people's republic of Newham, there will be much rejoicing in Epping Forest and elsewhere, where those glad tidings will be greeted with unalloyed joy. However, I fear that the hon. Member for Newham, South is misguided if that was his intention.
The serious point is that, as we have said, we are at pains to ensure that none of the obligations laid on LRT by the 1984 Act can be transferred by LT. It is no part of that Act to give LT the power to divest itself of the responsibilities that it holds under the 1984 Act. This modest Bill, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have frequently described it, will allow LT to take advantage of contracts arranged under the private finance initiative, the purpose of which are to secure better value for the travelling public in London.
I almost hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South will press the amendment because those on the Opposition Front Bench might then be in the unenviable position of having to vote against him. In all fairness to him, it might be kinder to ask him whether he might think of seeking leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Spearing: I assure the Minister that the idea of withdrawing amendments has been constantly before my mind as I have moved amendments which are, as I am sure the House will agree, justifiable probing amendments. I hope that the Bill will not cause the trouble that I fear that it may cause.
The Minister is absolutely right: my amendment to leave out section 34(3)(c) is not a serious amendment to the Bill. I wanted him to explain—which he did not do—the apparent anomaly in the wording of the Bill. I understand that he wants that wording for the purposes that he mentioned, but I suggest that it is confusing because it appears that the one clause says opposite things.
I hope that—surreptitiously, in another place—that confusion will be rectified. On that understanding, Madam Speaker, I will again take the Minister's advice—perhaps for the last time in this debate. For the reasons that I have outlined, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Pensions

[Relevant document: The memorandum relating to these Orders contained in the Fourteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (House of Commons Paper No. 34-xiv of Session 1995–96).]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security (Minimum Contributions to Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.

Madam Speaker: I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions) (Salary Related Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.

Mr. Heald: The independent Government Actuary issued a consultation document in August and has taken account of responses in preparing his report to the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken account of his advice in preparing his own proposals, which are before us today. They were laid before the House together with the three orders and the Government Actuary's report on 13 March.
On the current system and future proposals, we recognise that people need to be able to invest with confidence in their pensions. The Pensions Act 1995, which received Royal Assent last year, is intended to ensure that their investment will be safe. At the same time, we took the opportunity to make the system of contracting out more attractive. We responded to charges of complexity by breaking the current links between state and private second-tier provision, and we widened the appeal of contracting out by introducing a system of age-related rebates for contracted-out money purchase schemes and appropriate personal pensions rather than the current flat-rate rebate for those contracting out on a money purchase basis.
On the contracted-out salary related schemes rebate, the flat-rate rebate currently paid in salary-related schemes is 4.8 per cent. Of that figure, 1.8 per cent. goes to employees and 3 per cent. to the employer. The changes we propose to the contracting-out system mean that the basis of the rebate calculation has to be changed.
Had we continued the old system, the rebate would have been 4.4 per cent., which would reflect the decline in the accrual rates of guaranteed-minimum pensions. In future, it will be based on the cost of providing benefits of an actuarial value equivalent to the state earnings-related pension scheme given up rather than, as at present, the cost of providing the GMPs. In other words, the rebate is now higher than it would have been under the previous system, to reflect the greater liabilities now undertaken by salary-related schemes that contract out—for example, inflation proofing.
The independent Government Actuary took account of those changes, developments in SERPS provision and up-to-date actuarial assumptions. He reached the

conclusion that the rebate should be set at 4.6 per cent. from April 1997. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered his advice and decided to set the rebate at that level. We propose that 1.6 per cent. should go to the employee and that, as now, 3 per cent. will go to the employer.
We remain committed to the widest possible choice of pension provision. Currently, some 10 million people are members of salary-related schemes, which form a key element of pension provision in the UK. We believe that our proposals will ensure a sound basis for their continuing operation and development.
I shall deal now with age-related rebates for those who contract out into appropriate personal pensions and contracted-out money purchase schemes. People who contract out of SERPS in those two ways receive the same flat-rate rebate as those in salary-related schemes, except that people over the age of 30 with a personal pension receive an additional 1 per cent. That extra amount recognises the need for the rebate to be higher for older people with personal pensions. The nearer a person gets to retirement, the higher the initial investment has to be to match the state pension forgone.
Age-related rebates are the logical next step, and one which we pledged to introduce some time ago. Two of the orders laid today set out the respective age-related rebates for both COMPS and for personal pensions for each of the next five years, starting in April 1997. For COMPS, in the first year the rebates will range from 3.1 per cent. of relevant earnings for the youngest members to a maximum of 9 per cent. These rebates will be available partly as a flat rate 3.1 per cent. deduction from national insurance contributions. This deduction will be split, with 1.6 per cent. for employees and 1.5 per cent. going to the employer. Any additional age-related payment up to a total ceiling of 9 per cent. will be paid directly to their scheme by the Department of Social Security at the end of the tax year.
The age-related rebates for personal pensions will also be paid directly to the member's scheme at the end of each tax year. The rates will vary in the first instance from 3.4 per cent. for the youngest members to a maximum of 9 per cent.
We have capped the age-related rebates at 9 per cent. rather than allow rebates at much higher levels for older scheme members during the early years of the scheme, but we have ensured that the great majority of those with appropriate personal pensions should be best advised to remain with them, now and in the future. By imposing a 9 per cent. cap, we have been mindful of restraining the cost to the taxpayer of all this, too.
In deciding on the level of expenses and charges of pension providers to be used in calculating these age-related rebates, we have also sought value for money. Necessary and reasonable charges and expenses of providers and the correct amount to be invested on behalf of the member are both crucial in calculating the levels of appropriate rebates for money purchase pensions. In deciding that, we have taken the Government Actuary's advice on what were the charges of the more efficient providers. That again reflects our aim to be fair to pension holders, pension providers and the taxpayer.
We are confident that the measures will maintain the attractiveness of contracting out and promote more choice in the private pension provision available. The cost to the


taxpayer in the first year of the new rebate will be £7.7 billion of revenue forgone. By 2020, we expect annual savings to the national insurance fund from those contracted out of SERPS to outweigh the annual revenue then forgone on the rebate, and by 2030 we anticipate savings nearly double the costs. By 2050, savings should be some three times greater than costs. That represents a major burden lifted from future generations.
The Government have taken steps towards defusing the demographic time-bomb in the UK. A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that Canada is the only other country to have taken the necessary steps to do so. In fact, the OECD suggests that the UK may be able to repay its national debt and start to accumulate assets by 2030, leaving us better placed than almost any other country to meet the challenges of global competition in the 21st century.

Mr. Frank Field: For the first time, the Minister has given us the cost of age-related rebates. The Government Actuary's report was detailed, but the one piece of information for which taxpayers might have been looking was missing, but he has given it to us this afternoon. So that I and other hon. Members understand correctly, is the Minister saying that the costs of age-related rebates will rise from £7.7 billion in the first year that we are considering to £8.1 billion at the end of the five-year period? Are we therefore talking about the equivalent of a 5p increase in the standard rate of income tax? Will the Minister tell us again what he thought the savings would be from people who remain contracted out of SERPS and who are therefore not liable to gain SERF'S pensions as a result of these orders?

Mr. Heald: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall deal with that point in my winding-up speech. That would be more convenient, and I shall have the exact figures checked to see whether we are talking about 5p on income tax.
We are giving maximum scope for individuals to provide for their future, based firmly on a partnership between the state and the private sector but maximising the choices available. The orders underpin the almost uniquely strong position of the UK in meeting the challenges of the coming century. I commend them to the House.

Mr. John Denham: I make it clear at the outset that the Opposition will not oppose the orders. We have many criticisms of the pensions strategy that has led to them and, so far as it relevant to do so, I shall outline a number of them. We have many concerns about the implications of these orders for future pensions policy. Again, I shall explain what they are and ask the Minister some questions about the Government's intentions and expectations.
The principle of age-related rebates is a logical development from the current situation, although the practice may leave much to be desired. The background to the orders is, of course, the introduction in 1987 and 1988 of two new measures—the establishment of contracted-out money purchase schemes, which may be described as

COMPS, and the introduction of the right to opt out of SERPS into personal pensions or, as they are somewhat optimistically called, appropriate personal pensions. If I refer generally to personal pensions in this debate, I shall be referring to appropriate personal pensions.
What is in dispute in the debate is not the importance and value of funded pensions but the way in which the Government have gone about promoting wider membership of funded schemes. The promotion of personal pensions has formed a key part of the Government's pensions strategy. The Government miss no opportunity to promote the sales of personal pensions as a triumph, but the detail of the orders reveals that they are considerably less than that.
The promotion of personal pensions was part of a conscious and determined attempt to reduce the future pensions of millions of working people. If we forget about funding methods for a moment, what the Government have done to pensions—pay-as-you-go pensions, personal pensions and, indeed, the underpinning of occupational pensions—leads to a reduction in future pensions.
When SERPS was dramatically reduced in value in the 1980s, the pension was cut from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. of earnings. It became based on career earnings instead of the best 20 years. Widows' inheritance of their husbands' earnings-related pension was halved, and earnings-related invalidity benefits for those retiring on health grounds were abolished.
What was perhaps less clear at the time was that the new, reduced SERPS was to become the benchmark for the new appropriate personal pensions and for contracted-out money purchase schemes. In other words, whether one plumped for a funded or pay-as-you-go pension, the pension that one could expect for a given level of contribution was slashed.
In the beginning, the incentives to opt out, introduced at a cost to the public of £4 billion, may have disguised the link between low SERPS expectations and low expectations of personal pensions and COMPS. The high incentives may have gone some way in the short term to reducing the harm done to people on low incomes who, ill advisedly, opted out of SERPS. However, as the incentives have been cut and, above all, with the introduction of earnings-related rebates, it is crystal clear from the orders that a personal pension receiving only the national insurance rebate is not intended to perform better than the crippled level of benefits provided by SERPS.
The retirement income inquiry pointed out in its valuable appendix that a man on £10,000 a year would receive a SERPS pension worth only 10 per cent. of average male earnings. The Government intend that the same should apply to rebate-only APPs.
There can be a great deal of wild talk about how funded personal pensions could do better because of better investment returns. Indeed, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said in another place yesterday:
Quite often the effect of charges on a pension fund is more than outweighed by the investment performance."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 April 1996; Vol. 571, c. 209.]
With all due respect to Lord Mackay, in the context of this debate, that statement is nonsense. It is counter to everything that the Government are trying to do in the orders.
We can assume that the Government Actuary is an independent, professional and honourable man. He is under a clear legislative requirement to recommend


rebates that would provide an actuarial value equivalent to that of the SERPS benefits forgone. His job, and what he has done in advising the Government, is to take into account the best possible estimates of the long-run rate of return on investments. I assume that the Government accept his advice on this point.
I hope that the Minister will confirm not only that there is no question of personal pensions in general beating the markets but that, if it happened over a period, the Government Actuary's future advice would have to be to reduce the level of rebates under the terms of the current legislation.
The first point to establish is that these rebates are not intended to produce better benefits overall than SERPS at its current reduced rate. Schemes can only hope on average to do so if individuals and/or employers make additional contributions.
The second issue that needs to be considered is everything that has gone wrong since appropriate personal pensions were launched. The Government worked hard to create the impression that anyone would be foolish not to have a personal pension. What was the result? The policies of more than a million people are now being reviewed because they were encouraged to opt out, rather than joining or transferring from employers' pension schemes.
The cost of the review itself has been estimated at a one-off £100 million, plus on-going costs of £50 million. The cost of compensation has been estimated at between £2 billion and £4 billion. The review is way behind time; many people have not yet responded to their pension holders. Above all, an enormous amount of money that could have been invested in providing pensions for the future is being consumed by this Government and by regulatory disaster.
A total of 3.6 million people with incomes below £10,000 a year have opted out of SERPS. The average income of a woman with an appropriate personal pension is just £6,300 a year. Nearly half those who bought personal pensions in 1987–88 have failed to make regular contributions or pay in regular rebates each year since then. Low incomes, a lack of persistence and a failure to return to SERPS at an appropriate age all constitute warnings that, in the long run, people may not be best served by personal pensions.
In recent weeks, what strikes me as a rather clever media campaign has taken place to prepare the way for a conclusion to the current Securities and Investments Board study. The message of that campaign is that there is not much wrong with the sale of pensions to people on low incomes, and that there is no need for special efforts to remedy the problem. Let me make it clear that I do not want anyone's pension to suffer: I feel no pleasure when that happens. Nevertheless, if it turns out that a combination of the initial high incentives and the above-average rate of return on equities in recent years has limited the actual damage to date, that does not mean that it will necessarily be prudent for low earners with broken work patterns to remain in appropriate personal pensions. To suggest that would be to promote a con and a deception.
I look to the Minister to give an absolute assurance that there is no question of the Government's brushing the issue under the carpet and claiming that there is nothing to worry about. I also ask him to make every effort to ensure that people are given the best possible

advice—to which they are entitled under the Financial Services Act 1986—and that the regulators' guidance is followed to the letter.
The main public concerns to date about the promotion of personal pensions have involved poor advice and mis-selling, but the orders, and the Government Actuary's advice, should bring home to everyone why the Government's personal pension strategy is unravelling before our eyes.
The Government have set out their conclusions about the typical costs of personal pensions; they make sober reading. Let us examine the impact of charges from a typical provider, as identified by the Government Actuary. There are initial expenses of 8 per cent. on the initial rebate, renewal expenses of £30 per annum, a 0.9 per cent. reduction in the annual return and an annuity loading of 2 per cent. on the annuity purchase price.
Let us consider the example of a person on £10,000 a year who makes a single year's contribution to a personal pension. That may sound extreme, but the Government's own personal pension statistics show that 73,000 of the people who bought personal pensions in 1987–88 had paid in only one year's rebate by the latest available date. Let us assume that that person makes a contribution 20 or 30 years before retirement. By the time that he or she retires, every penny that has been paid will have disappeared in fees and charges, and there will be nothing in the pension to show for the year at work. I do not think that people can afford that.
At the other extreme, let us assume that that same person on £10,000 a year buys a personal pension 30 years before retirement and keeps it, never missing a rebate payment until state pension age. This, too, is likely to be an extreme case: only half the people who bought personal pensions in the first year had managed to pay in rebates in each of the six years to 1992–93. More than a quarter of the savings in that case will disappear in fees and charges by the time that the person retires.
That is the position for someone on £10,000 a year; what about someone on £7,000—more than the average income of women with personal pensions? Such a person, paying a single premium, will lose every penny. The person who keeps the policy for 30 years will lose about a third of his or her savings: about £1 in £3 of the money that has been paid in will not be available to provide a pension when that person retires.
What about those on £4,000 a year? Even if they keep their policies for 30 years, they will lose well over half their savings, and that money will not be available to pay for a pension. That too may seem an extreme case, especially as some reputable companies would not sell a rebate-only personal pension to someone on twice that income; but, in 1993–94, more than 250,000 men and 270,000 women had earnings below £4,000. If their incomes do not rise, more than half a million people are set to lose more than 50 per cent. of their pension savings. In fact, the situation—even for those who attempt to keep their policies until retirement—will often be much worse. As I have said, half those who bought personal pensions at the outset have failed to make regular rebate payments. For many of those people, annual charges will continue to eat deeply into their savings.
At best, the orders reveal that a quarter of savings will be lost in the case of a typical pension provider; at worst, more will be lost—up to and including every penny. I believe that


we should be grateful for the Government Actuary's study. A decent Government would have published such figures themselves, as would an effective regulator. That has not happened, and we all know why. The Government have been pouring savers' money down the drain as if there were no tomorrow, and they do not want anyone to find out.
However, the Actuary and the Government have based the orders on the impact of charges from what is described as a more efficient provider. Even here, a single premium would lose 27 per cent. of its value over 30 years, while a policy receiving rebates continuously for 30 years would lose £1 in £5 of the money saved. Given the cost of typical providers, even the more efficient ones, neither individuals nor society can afford to waste savings at such a rate. Every pound that is eaten up could provide a pension in the future. What an irony: the Government said that they wanted to save taxpayers' money in the future, and they have ended up wasting savers' money today.
It should be noted that not everyone is convinced that the Government Actuary's estimates of the cost are correct. As his report makes clear, Ministers have announced that they do not intend age-related rebates to incorporate an allowance for flat-rate charges. His figures reflect Government policy; they do not necessarily reflect what is happening in the real world.
Responding to the Actuary's consultative paper on 25 November 1995, the joint working group comprising the Association of British Insurers, the National Association of Pension Funds, the Association of Consultant Actuaries, the Society of Pension Consultants and the Association of Pension Lawyers—a group whose views should not be taken lightly—expressed surprise at the outcome of the review of charges levied by personal pension providers.
Referring specifically to the section of the Actuary's report that dealt with the most efficient providers, the group expressed the view that providers with low initial charges would have higher annual charges, and that there would be fixed policy fees. Insufficient weight had been given to marketing costs. The consensus was that the charge on competitively priced APP contracts was likely to be around 8 per cent. of each rebate, plus 1 per cent. per annum of the accumulated fund, plus a policy fee—generally linked with the retail prices index or national average earnings, at between £1 and £3 a month—and twice the cost of purchasing the annuity shown in the orders.
The group pointed out that younger people, people with rebate-only contracts, people on lower incomes and people who are contracted out for short periods, or who switch to new policies from time to time—for example, job movers who rely on group personal pensions—could lose badly unless adequate provision is made. A powerful voice from the industry has said very clearly that the costs for even the most efficient providers have been set at too low a level, and that many people's pensions will be damaged.
The Government have made a policy decision. They have decided to base age-related rebates on what they call the reasonable costs and charges of the more efficient personal pension providers. By definition, however, most personal pension providers are not more efficient—their costs are higher.
The contrast between the typical and the more efficient provider has placed Ministers on the horns of a dilemma. What were the Government to do? Should they listen to the industry, which pleaded with them to recognise its real costs, no doubt amid dark hints about telling everyone that they should opt back into the state earnings-related pension scheme? That would have been viewed, however, as padding out the costs of less efficient companies selling high-cost pensions.
On the other hand, the Government could do what they have done: base the rebates on more efficient providers, but what is to happen to all the people who do not have a pension from a more efficient provider? They will suffer. Their rebates will be too low to cover the real costs of their pensions. Their pensions will suffer as a result of the Government's decision.
Of course, to pad out the costs of less efficient providers with taxpayers' money would have caused outrage. To allow the pensions of millions of people to be cut by high charges is a disgrace. It must have been a difficult choice to make. Faced with the choice between outrage and disgrace, the Government chose disgrace. No doubt their decision was coloured by the consideration that higher rebates would mean higher tax or national insurance and less scope for pre-election tax cuts. We can imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security saying, "Most people don't understand all this, anyway. They'll never realise what we are doing to them."
I would have some sympathy with the Ministers who had to take the decision if it were not for two things. First, I sympathise more with people whose savings are being wasted; and, secondly, the whole mess is of the Government's making. They have been driven by a desperate desire to cut spending on SERPS, and have not put a cost-effective and efficient alternative in place.
My criticisms are directed at the Government, not at pension providers. There have been individual problems with some people and some companies, but the Government cannot escape the fact that the current shape of the industry, with all its attendant costs, is the Government's creation. It has grown in response to the Government's contracting-out legislation and regulatory framework. The fact that so much of savers' money is being eaten up and will not be available to generate pensions is the Government's fault and no one else's.
I should like to turn to some of the other important issues that are raised by the rebates. What does the Minister anticipate will happen to the balance between APPs and SERPS? Does he expect more people to opt out or to opt back in? Does he expect older employees to keep their policies to retirement, or people to opt back into SERPS once the 9 per cent. cap on the rebate is reached? In his opening statement, he gave the impression that he thought that people would keep their policies to retirement, but in The Sunday Telegraph of 31 March, Mr. Ron Spill, pensions consultant with Legal and General, suggested that there were still pivotal ages for contracting back into SERPS: about 55 for men and 45 for women. What does the Minister expect to happen, and what assumptions has he made about that?
Will the Minister place on record his view of how the rebate levels that have been set for salary-related schemes, money purchase schemes and appropriate personal pensions will affect the balance between these different


types of pension provision? There are substantial costs involved in the rebates. As far as I can make out from the orders, overall administration costs in approved private pensions are some five times as high as in occupational pension schemes.
If rebates were being paid to personal pensions at the same rate as they are being paid, in effect, to members of final salary schemes or salary-related schemes, the reduction in payment would be about £300 million: the loading for the higher costs of personal pensions involves some £300 million per annum of public money, so the issue of the balance between different schemes is of great importance.
In the past decade, there has been a consistent trend away from defined benefit schemes towards defined contribution schemes. It is difficult to quantify, but no one seems to deny that it is taking place. Next year's introduction of combined schemes, offering one set of benefits to one group of employees and another set of benefits to another, seems likely to hasten the process. The problem, in principle, is not so much the different way of generating benefits, as the fact that the shift is commonly associated with a reduction in employers' contributions to employees' pensions.
The Secretary of State has announced his intention to promote the sale of group personal pensions. He is presenting it as a way of bringing pensions to people whose employers do not currently provide them. In practice, it is more likely that they will appeal to employers who are searching for ways of reducing their contribution to an existing pension scheme and its members.
During the passage of the Pensions Act 1995, the National Association of Pension Funds, among others, expressed concern at the failure to establish a level playing field between different types of pension provision. A tilt in the value of the contracted-out rebates could influence the decision about which type of scheme an employer establishes on grounds that are not directly related to the best interests of employees.
The Government seem to have been in several minds about the treatment of money purchase schemes. Originally, they were not sure whether they should have age-related rebates at all; then they suggested that they should, but at a lower level than personal pensions, creating a differential in favour of personal pension providers. Now they have set them at the same level, in effect, as personal pensions, but at the expense, it appears, of creating an even bigger divide between salary-related and money purchase schemes.
What does the Minister expect to result from the structure of the rebates? Does he expect the rebates to hasten the shift from salary-related schemes to money purchase schemes? If so, is that the Government's policy objective? Does he have any concerns about employers who use that move as an opportunity to cut contributions to their employees' pensions? What does he expect to happen to the balance between contracted-out money purchase schemes and personal pensions? How does he respond to the view that I have received from an industry source who notes that many life offices withdrew from the money purchase market and few new money purchase schemes have been set up since 1993 because of the complexities involved?
The latest contracting-out changes continue a system that requires different administration for a money purchase scheme and for a contracted-out personal pension. The

arrangements for a money purchase scheme will be even more complex. As before, the employer will have to operate a contracted-out payroll for national insurance purposes with a special rebate of 3.1 per cent. Minimum contributions equivalent to the flat-rate rebate will have to be paid by the employer to the scheme trustee monthly, and, at the end of the tax year, the Department of Social Security will pay a supplementary age-related rebate to the trustees to top up the flat-rate minimum contributions.
The view is expressed that the balance in these rebates now means that there are few advantages in establishing and running a money purchase scheme, and that it is likely that employers will set up only group personal pension schemes, and that remaining money purchase schemes may be wound up in favour of group personal pensions. Does the Minister share that view? Is that the Government's objective? What does he expect the outcome to be in the balance between money purchase schemes and personal pensions?
The Government should have learnt by now that there is a close relationship between what they do and what happens in the pension industry. It would be disastrous if the rebates caused a further movement in the slide towards lower-quality pension provision and reduced pension rights, which has been the hallmark of the Government.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister was kind enough to give way earlier so that I could ask a question. The reason I wished to do so was so that I and perhaps other hon. Members could be clear on the costs of the orders that we are discussing. The Minister kindly replied that it would be convenient if he answered the question in his winding-up speech. Clearly, it would be convenient to him, but it is not to the rest of us. I shall return if I can—

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Field: If we are going to hear the answer now, that is even better.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have answered his parliamentary question on that point. The various costs are set out from the year 1997–98—when the cost is £7.7 billion—to 2001–02, when it is £8.1 billion. He should bear it in mind that, if the present system were to continue unchanged, the cost in 1997–98 would be £8 billion, not £7.7 billion, so there is no question of these being extra costs.

Mr. Field: If I understand the Minister aright, he is now saying that he is cutting the cost to the national insurance scheme of introducing age-related rebates. If that is the result of what he has just told us, I should have thought that the industry might have had a few things to say before we reached this debate.

Mr. Heald: The various different categories are set out in the answer, so that the hon. Gentleman can see the way in which the figure of £7.7 billion is calculated. The point that I am making is that, if the system remained as it is at present, the overall cost would be £8 billion, not £7.7 billion.

Mr. Field: I am sorry to appear so thick, but I still do not understand the answer. Are we saying that, if there


were no orders tonight, the cost of the scheme with the existing rebates would be £8 billion, and that with these changes that cost is reduced to £7.7 billion—in other words, some people who are currently getting rebates will get less rebate as a result of the measure because we are substantially rescheduling those rebates towards age-related rebates? I know that I am supposed to be making the speech, but I should be grateful if, at some stage, the Minister could intervene to clarify that point.

Mr. Heald: The point is that, at the moment, the scheme relies upon flat-rate rebates. The point about age-related rebates is that they become larger each year as the person grows older and the amount of money necessary to go into the scheme to replicate SERPS gets larger. Therefore, there is an effect of compensating some people more than previously and under-compensating others in comparison, so that one ends up with a taper rather than a flat-rate charge.

Mr. Field: If I interpret that intervention correctly, it means that the scheme now is weighting the subsidy towards older rather than younger workers—[Interruption.] If that is not the case, I fail to comprehend what the order is about. As I understood it, the Government needed to make substantial concessions to older workers who are contracted out of the scheme to ensure that they remained outside.
I tabled a question asking what would be the cost specifically of the new age-related rebates. The answer was given and the Minister included it in his speech. The Minister is now saying that the total cost to the national insurance scheme of the subsidy package is marginally less than what it would have been had the old orders remained in place.

Mr. Heald: If one looks at the overall figures, the overall reduction is £0.3 billion. The significant part of that concerns salary-related schemes rather than the age-related rebate part. As far as that is concerned, there is no significant reduction in the overall amount, but there is a change in the taper as a result of the introduction of age-related rebates rather than a flat-rate scheme.

Mr. Field: I am grateful for that. I shall not ask the Minister to intervene on that point again, but I shall return to it in a moment.
I have one other question for the Minister, which he might be able to answer when he replies to the debate. Perhaps, understandably, the Minister kept carefully to his brief when introducing the orders to the House. No doubt most of us in his position would have done the same. He continued at some pace when he was covering the question of charges for those who have undertaken private pension arrangements. What I could not quite grasp, because I was trying to hear him and understand the parliamentary answer that he read into his speech, was whether he thought that the charges would be reduced because of the power that the Government had over whether people would be able to claim their rebates, or whether the Government had the power to set the charges throughout the private sector for the servicing of personal pensions.
I shall try to keep my second point going for long enough to enable the Minister to answer that point before we end. Will the Minister use mere suasion to force down charges or, in the background, do the Government have the power if they wish not only to set charges on personal pensions in respect of the rebate, but more generally? That was the question which crossed my mind listening to him.

Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the new rules that have been brought in on disclosure, coupled with competition and setting the rebates at a level that reflects the position of the best providers with the most efficient levels of charges, should mean that those who are purchasing personal pensions have the best possible deal. There is no doubt that those measures, working together, providing an element of transparency and competition, are creating the right circumstances for the best arrangements to be made.
There is a power, as the hon. Gentleman will know, which the Government are entitled to exercise by statute, to restrict the level of charges, but that is not something which has been done, and it is certainly competition and the element of transparency on which the Government rely.

Mr. Field: I am grateful for that, because it will be news to most hon. Members that the Government have always had the power to set the level of charges in the private sector in respect of servicing pensions, despite all the evidence that we have had about the size of those charges. The Government are now saying that, because of disclosure and growing competition, charges will be pushed down. If, in fact, after a period the Minister's faith in competition pushing down charges is not fulfilled, will the Government move against the industry and against some of the levels of charges that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) described in his opening comments?
Secondly, I wish to move back to the question of costs. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Social Security on the Treasury Bench. He is adept in the public debate at saying to anyone who comes up with proposals for reform that costs must clearly be attached to such reforms and that we should be certain about what those costs are, and even consider what the rate of tax would be to implement those reforms.
What I thought was interesting about the parliamentary answer that I was given earlier today was that we have the cost of maintaining the Minister's strategy. The cost of the rebates during the next five years is the equivalent of 5p on the standard rate of income tax. If the Minister wants to join in the debate that the Opposition are beginning, on opening up the options of how social security might develop in the next Parliament, I hope that he will bring to it a clear declaration that his policy is not without costs and that, for each of the next five years, his policy is costing every working taxpayer the equivalent of an additional 5p on his standard rate of income tax.
The "Lilley package", if one can call it that, does not come without a price tag. The price tag was disclosed in the parliamentary answer this afternoon and it is a significant one. It helps to open up the debate on the Opposition Benches. The status quo will have that cost, so should we think of changing the status quo, we know that we shall be starting with 5p on the standard rate of income tax as the cost of the Government's current strategy. That was the point that I wished to make in the debate.
I am also pleased about the clarification that we heard earlier. While the debate was raging in the country over the appalling level of charges that some companies were making for those who had bought the Government's package, had gone private and had contracted out of SERPS, when figures were being produced showing that some people would have charges that wiped out the whole of their savings, the Government kept quiet about the fact that they had the reserve powers to direct what those charges should be.
We now know that they have those powers and have never once in one of those years sought to use them. Again today, the junior Minister has said that he is depending on competition to force down charges and safeguard people's savings. If that policy is unsuccessful—as it has been in the past five years—will the Government act to regulate charges before we rise for the summer recess?

Mr. Heald: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) raised a number of issues. I dealt with most of them in interventions that he kindly let me make.
On the question of interfering in the market and setting a level by restricting the charges that can be levied, the hon. Gentleman should concede that there are dangers in such interference. If the level is set too low, there may be no provision at all. If the level is set too high, there may be a risk of exploitation of the position. So the Government's view has been and remains that transparency and competition—the new disclosure arrangements and companies competing in the market for pension business—is the best way forward. We have no intention at this stage of considering any changes in that approach.

Mr. Frank Field: While we all accept that charges can be so low that the industry will not be able to provide a service, the Minister also accepts that charges can be too high. There is a weight of evidence that, in some schemes, people have the whole of their savings wiped out by charges. As the aim of the Government's reform is to ensure that people have a substantial sum of pension capital, so that they will have an income and will not be dependent on welfare when they retire, surely, in instances in which the level of charges is such that it puts at risk whether a person receives an adequate pension or any pension, the Government ought not to sit back and wait for competition to push down charges. Surely they ought to flex their muscles and let the industry know that they will act if such levels of charges continue.

Mr. Heald: The danger in the hon. Gentleman's approach is that, if one looks at one year in isolation and says that, in that particular year, 77,000 out of 5.6 million personal pensioners paid one contribution in and they have not done so since, one gets a false picture of what pension provision a lifetime of work will achieve. That is the point that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made.

Mr. Denham: Is the Minister saying that it is of no consequence that 70,000 people who bought personal pensions in one year entirely wasted their pension savings and will have no contribution to their pension to show for that year? Surely to those 70,000 people that is of

enormous importance. A large number of people who have been in pension schemes for longer will have nothing to show for it. Surely the Minister cannot dismiss that so lightly.

Mr. Heald: It is a small proportion, and it is not indicative of what the result would be over a lifetime of work. The whole point of personal pensions is that they are flexible. People may pay in one year, not pay for several years thereafter, and then pay in solidly for many years. The Government have encouraged a form of pension that is flexible. The same is true of SERPS. If people pay in one year, it does not buy them much. If they have a long contribution record over years, the pension is judged on that basis, and the benefits they receive are higher.

Mr. Denham: Does the Minister accept that the point about SERPS is that people cannot lose a year's pension rights once they have earned them? It is wrong to say that personal pensions are the same as SERPS. In SERPS, if people work for a year and earn above the lower earnings limit, they establish a year's pension rights, which they cannot lose. Everyone accepts that the pattern that the Minister described of someone in and out of a personal pension produces a result that is bad value for money.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman surely concedes that one year's contributions to SERPS taken as indicative of final pension provision would not amount to more than a few pence. Any pension scheme depends on a contribution record. The Government have always recognised that, but one of the advantages of personal pensions is their flexibility. They are a vehicle that can be built on. Many people who have bought personal pensions welcome that.
It is wrong to say that there is firm evidence that rebate-only personal pensions are unsuitable for specific types of employee. Neither low earnings nor time out of the employment market necessarily means that the final personal pension will not be as high as that from SERPS. One of the reasons for that is the high levels of yield that have been achieved in the private sector in the years since 1980. The hon. Gentleman knows the figures as well as I do—10 per cent. in real terms. It is true that charges vary from scheme to scheme, but only a financial adviser, who is in a good position to judge, can determine what is the best product for an individual.
Some of the other points raised included the level of the rebates. Some detailed points were raised about that. The hon. Member for Itchen asked whether it was the Government's objective to see employers with occupational money purchase schemes switch to group personal pensions. The answer is no. The Government want to see the second tier of funded provision, which has been built up carefully over the years of this Government, protected and improved.
We should like to see more individuals taking the option of funded pension provision, if it is the right scheme for them. The hon. Member for Itchen should bear it in mind that employers are not obliged to have occupational schemes, and not all do. Group personal pensions are an additional option especially suitable to those who currently make no provision. We have no reason to think that occupational money purchase schemes will disappear.
As for the question whether contracted-out money purchase schemes are viable according to the pensions industry, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read the comments by Alan Jenkinson, the highly respected policy director of Sedgewick Noble Lowndes. He said:
Directly invested contracted-out money purchase schemes now start looking as attractive as personal pensions. What Mr. Lilley has done with contracted-out money purchase schemes is to bring them into line with personal pensions.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the views of someone such as Alan Jenkinson, who has spent a lifetime in the field and is well respected, are worth considering. They were some of the first comments made after the orders were laid.
The hon. Member for Itchen said that employers might use the trend towards contracted-out money purchase schemes and away from contracted-out salary-related schemes to reduce their contributions. We attach great importance to good-quality pension provision and we hope that employers will not reduce their level of contributions. We want them to make the best use of the flexibility available to them to maintain good levels of provision for their work force.
I hope that the hon. Member for Itchen and his hon. Friends concede that the contracted-out money purchase scheme and appropriate personal pension are viable options for various categories of individuals and companies. They have enabled us to expand pension provision in the private sector. I believe that it is wrong always to defend state provision at the expense of private sector provision. It is easy to become Mr. Nationalisation. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that personal private pension provision has given this country £600 billion-worth of assets—more than all the other European countries put together—which will enable us by 2030 to pay off the national debt and start accruing assets at a time when other countries will be beggared.

Mr. Denham: Does the Minister accept what I said in my opening speech, that this debate is not about the value of funded pensions, but about the fact that so much of the money that goes into funded pensions goes down the drain? The Government have tipped it down the drain like there is no tomorrow. We need funded pensions where people know that their savings are going to grow, be used to provide pensions and not be wasted in fees and charges. The Minister has not yet addressed that issue.

Mr. Heald: The Government have addressed those problems. It is easy always to carp and criticise and say that everything that the Government do is wrong—that every aspect of personal pensions is wrong, but that the principle is right. As a result of the Government's policies, 5.6 million more people have pension provision. For many of them, that will mean a far better retirement than they would have had otherwise.
I was asked why there had been a reduction in the cost of the rebate. The reduction is owing to the reduction in the contracted-out salary-related rebate. The cost of introducing age-related rebates is broadly neutral. The figures that set that out are given in my answer to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
I was asked about whether flat-rate charges drastically reduced the value of individual personal pension funds in years when people could not contribute. I accept that all charges affect the total amount of funds in a personal pension, including the flat-rate charges. Not all personal pension providers levy flat-rate charges, and all such charges are now disclosed to individuals when they take out such pensions. The new age-related rebates have been calculated excluding flat-rate charges and have been based on the charges of the more efficient pension providers.
I was asked whether people earning £10,000 a year or less should invest in personal pensions. There is no golden rule that people who earn less than that should remain in SERPS. It depends on the circumstances of the individual, investment performance and the charging structure. The fact that some providers use that figure is not proof that people would be unwise to take an appropriate personal pension with another provider. The hon. Member for Itchen has said:
There is no single, simple measure of whether an individual will be better off in SERPS or with an APP. This will depend on the cost and charges of individual schemes, the performance of investments and the number and level of contributions people make.
That was a sensible comment, with which I would agree. It runs counter to some of the arguments that he was putting.

Mr. Denham: indicated dissent.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of time telling us his views about people earning £6,000, £7,000 or £10,000 a year.

Mr. Denham: It is a lot of people.

Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman says in a semi-sedentary remark, it is a lot of people, but his comment in his 23 February press statement was more sensible. He asked whether I would confirm that there is no question of personal pensions beating the market. The Government Actuary was prudent in his assumptions, in estimating the size of the rebates needed to replace future SERPS that have been forgone. In practice, investment returns vary and may well exceed those assumptions. Over the past 15 years, fund returns have averaged almost 10 per cent. a year in real terms. In future reviews, the Government Actuary will, of course, take account of the latest information and assumptions.
The hon. Member for Itchen mentioned that half the people who bought appropriate personal pensions in 1987–88 have failed to make regular contributions. I have already answered that by saying that it is not sensible or realistic to assume that a short period of zero or low contributions indicates a lifetime experience. He asked whether the Government were biased against the benefits offered by salary-related schemes. I can give a simple answer: no, we are not.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether flat-rate charges that were unrelated to the level of contributions made personal pensions a bad deal. I have answered that, too. He asked whether the 9 per cent. cap would cause people to go back into SERPS. We have decided to phase in age-related rebates by means of the 9 per cent. cap, but setting the cap at that level means that the majority of the


current APP holders should be able to maintain their plans until retirement without imposing an excessive cost to the public funds. In so far as other commentators may not agree with that, we do not believe that they are correct. [Interruption.] I could expatiate on that at great length, but I have had advice that that would not be wise.

Mr. Denham: The Government's intention with the rebates is that people should normally hold their personal pensions until retirement. On that issue, the Government are saying not that people should seek the advice of an independent financial adviser, but that they should stay in their schemes because it will save the Government money and stop them opting back into SERPS, contrary to what some financial advisers are already saying.

Mr. Heald: I believe that the hon. Gentleman's comment was slightly mischievous. We always advise people to take independent financial advice. It is prudent to do so because individual circumstances vary. I would not wish to change that.
The hon. Gentleman carped and criticised a good deal. He and his party's spokesman on social security have been asked to think the unthinkable for six months—180 days. For ideas, they have been to Singapore, Finland, Australia and Chile.

Mr. Denham: indicated dissent.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman says that he has not personally had the trips, but members of his team have. They have been around the world in 180 days like latter-day Phineas Foggs, but they have not found an answer any better than the Government's proposals. I commend the orders to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Minimum Contributions to Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions) (Salary Related Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Heald.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I beg to move,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 17) (House of Commons Paper No. 299), which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1996 (House of Commons Paper No. 297), which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.

Mr. Bowis: The first order sets out two grants for English local authorities. The first is the special transitional grant to local authorities in England for 1996–97 for expenditure on community care services. The second is the capital limits for residential accommodation charges grant for England. The second order sets out the allocation of the special grant to local authorities in Wales for the changes to the capital limits for residential accommodation charges.
Special Grant Report No. 17 sets out the amount of special transitional grant—STG—for each English local authority for 1996–97. The total amount of the grant is £418 million. The special transitional grants for each of the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 have now been included in the standard spending assessment for personal social services. The total funding that we are giving in 1996–97 to English local authorities for their new responsibilities under the community care reforms is therefore £2.256 billion—a very substantial sum indeed. This is planned to rise still further, by another £325 million, next year.
Even that is not the total provision that the Government are making for community care. The total provision for community care in England for 1996–97 is £5.6 billion, and the total funding for all social services is £7.4 billion. Total resources for community care have increased by 10 per cent. in cash terms this year on last and by 99 per cent. in real terms since 1990–91. That shows the substantial commitment that we have made to providing resources to enable local authorities to meet the needs of their local communities. Of course, it remains up to local authorities to decide how much of their general funding they actually spend on community care.
Apart from the overriding condition that the resources be spent on community care, the only condition that we attach to the special transitional grant is that 85 per cent. of it should be used to purchase services from the independent sector, and that that is in addition to the amounts that authorities have been required to spend in the independent sector in previous years.
The independent sector condition has proved to be an effective measure, giving stability to the market at a time of change, providing existing residents with security and opening up choice to the user. Local authorities should not close down options by creating false divides using restrictive accountancy practices to dictate phoney choice instead of offering real choice to the individual. In its


report, the Audit Commission said that accounting separately for the STG and other community care resources can lead to distortions, and that
where authorities apply maximum cost limits to packages of care … local authority services are sometimes … treated as a 'free good' … this practice distorts priorities".
The Audit Commission recommended that
Resources need to be managed in an integrated way and merged into a single commissioning budget.
We are providing large sums of money to local authorities for community care.

Mr. Alan Milburn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bowis: Yes, as it will give me time to find my place.

Mr. Milburn: I am glad to be helpful, as ever. Can the Minister confirm that he still intends to end the ring fencing of STG moneys? This would be the last year of the ring fence. Also, how will he guarantee that community care funding goes where it is needed in future years, particularly given the environment that most local authorities operate in?

Mr. Bowis: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this is the fourth year of the four years that we said would have the transitional grant, which was ring-fenced. Although I have given an indication of the resources that will be available for that in future years, it will be up to local authorities to use the money wisely and ensure that it is spent as it should be, which is for community care and other personal social services.
The determining factors in the expenditure of the money must be quality of service and value for money matched to the individual's needs and choices. When it comes to value for money, local authorities often need to bring down their costs. They need to consider carefully the justification for spending more on directly provided services than an equivalent service provided by the independent sector. The difference in costs when multiplied by the number of users presents some authorities with the opportunity of considerable savings in their present budgets, and they could be used to improve and extend the community care services they offer their local communities.
This year, the distribution of the special transitional grant is again based on the standard spending assessment formulae. That is the most equitable method of distribution, as it is based on an assessment of the relative needs of each local authority.
I now deal with special grants for the changes to capital limits used in the assessment of charges for residential care. Charging for residential care has been in place since a Labour Government introduced the National Assistance Act 1948. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his 1995 Budget statement, the capital limits used in the assessment of charges are being increased this month from £3,000 to £10,000 and from £8,000 to £16,000. The same rate of assumed weekly income will apply to capital between £10,000 and £16,000. The new limits take effect from 8 April this year.
The increases have been warmly welcomed by all concerned. They are excellent news for elderly and other vulnerable people who make a contribution out of their capital for care. The increases are to be funded through special grants for 1996–97 only because there was insufficient time left during this financial year following the Chancellor's announcement for them to be funded through the usual means of the SSAs for local authorities.
I am grateful to the local authority associations for the help and advice they gave us and the information that they provided us with in working out how the increases should be financed. There are considerable difficulties in forecasting the future costs of such a change, as it involves an unknown number of people. There will inevitably be different views of the cost. Having taken into account the information gathered by the associations, it was clear that the Government's initial cost estimates for the effects on social services authorities were a little low, so we decided that £64.487 million for England and £3.882 million for Wales was right.

Mr. Milburn: Having thanked the local authority associations, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that their estimate of the costs of the increase in the capital disregard is not £64 million but £141 million?

Mr. Bowis: I am certainly happy to confirm that they put in a higher figure, just as the figure that we had initially been working on was lower. We considered the various factors that they presented. We felt that some were speculative. Others were what we deemed to be items that we could take into account. We listened and considered and came up with the increased figure, which is fair and will be judged as such.
We decided to distribute the grant to English social service departments using the SSA for residential services for elderly people. For Wales, the local authority associations agreed that the SSA distribution formula for elderly personal social services would be an equitable basis for the distribution of the special grant for 1996–97. Again, it was for one year only. The distribution of the resources for future years will be made using the corresponding indicators in the SSA distribution formula.
The Government have clearly shown their commitment to community care and made substantial resources available. These special grant reports provide for the distribution of additional funds to local authorities totalling more than£482 million for 1996–97 for England and £3.8 million for Wales. They are fair settlements. We now rely on the local authorities concerned to produce fair results for the people who are to benefit from them. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Alan Milburn: I thank the Minister for outlining in a fairly succinct way the Government's views on the special transitional grant and community care funding. I am disappointed that this debate has taken place at the fag end of the parliamentary Session. Some might say that that shows that the Government have something to hide. Indeed, as I proceed through my speech, I shall try to highlight the fact that the community care system is coming under more pressure and that the very people it is supposed to support are beginning to be denied care.
At the outset, I should say that there are two issues on which there is agreement. First, community care is right in principle. The overwhelming majority of disabled and elderly people want to live as normal a life as possible in their own homes and contribute to the community.
Secondly, all hon. Members will concur that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to those who organise and provide care in the community—not just local authorities, but private sector organisations and voluntary organisations, social workers, district nurses, home care assistants and staff who work in residential and nursing home establishments. They provide invaluable services, often in difficult circumstances. Their work is underpinned by those who provide care for free—the army of unpaid carers, often women, who are the foundation on which the whole community care edifice is built.
There is no disagreement in principle with the thrust of community care—quite the opposite. There is unequivocal Opposition support for the community care principle. Our profound disagreements concern the way in which the Government have implemented community care. In our view, they have produced a chaotic, perverse and unfair system that denies choice, limits quality and wastes public money.
The special grant report does nothing to correct those deficiencies. In some respects, it merely makes matters worse. In his canter through the facts, the Minister repeated the mantra that is all too often the common parlance of Health Ministers when they are in trouble—everything is fine because we are banging a lot more money into the system.
Indeed, on a cursory examination of the figures in the report, the Minister seems to have fact on his side. On the face of it, there are lots of new resources and a substantial increase in funding, but the Minister omitted to mention two further factors that rather undermine his case. First, the social security transfer and independent living elements of the STG moneys do not represent new cash; the money was already in the system. The only difference now is that it is cash-limited.
Secondly, the £418 million of STG highlighted in the report is a large element—indeed, the bulk element—of the £481 million that the Government suggest overall social services spending should increase by in the current financial year. In reality, total standard spending on social services this year is less than actual social services spending last year£that is before any account is taken of inflation, of pay rises and of additional responsibilities that local authorities will have to bear, including those resulting from the most welcome Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, which came into being on Monday 1 April.
The local authority associations' latest survey of social services departments has found that 48 out of 68 local authorities are having to make net reductions in budgets totalling approximately £116 million. In case the Minister thinks that that is purely vested interest, I point him towards other evidence. Independent analysts, such as Laing and Buisson, have said that the budget settlement for 1996–97 will not be sufficient to cover inflation and increased demand as a result of demographic change and additional local authority responsibilities, and that they are predicting severe bed blocking in the national health service as a consequence.

Mr. Bowis: The Government have increased the resources for that area by 10 per cent. in cash terms this year and we have increased resources from £3.6 billion to £7.4 billion in six years. I ask the Opposition spokesman: how much more money would the Labour party put in right now?

Mr. Milburn: I shall correct the Minister on one point: over the past three or four years, the personal social services SSA has fallen by around 5 per cent. in real terms, as he knows. As for additional investment, during my speech, the Minister will hear ways in which the Labour party proposes radical reform of community care provision to get better value for money—that is the pressing priority. Money alone will not solve the fundamental fault lines that now characterise community care provision.
Far from there being lots of additional new cash available for community care services, at best there is a standstill budget in this financial year and at worst there is a lower budget than last year. However, as the Minister will know, demand for services has not stood still—quite the reverse: demand is rising sharply. The Government should not be reticent about that fact. Indeed, it could be argued that one of the real successes of the community care reforms has been the stimulation of demand for services from people who need them. That is very welcome.
Last year, a report by the Association of Directors of Social Services showed referrals increasing by 14 per cent. per annum and assessments generally rising by 11 per cent. per annum. Against a background of rising demand, local authorities are continuing to uphold community care policy, but to provide a service to those most in need, they are reluctantly turning to rationing and charging for services.
The Audit Commission has found that most authorities are increasing home care services, but I understand that a forthcoming report from the London Research Centre will find that packages of care are increasingly concentrated on those with the highest level of dependency. If local authorities cannot afford to support people with relatively low levels of need in their own homes, they may deteriorate quickly and enter residential care prematurely. We all agree that one of the central thrusts of community care policy has been prevention—ensuring that, as far as possible, people retain independence and do not become dependent—for the sake of the people involved and that of the taxpayer.
There are also major flaws in the way charging policies are implemented. Financial constraints are leading more local authorities to charge more for local services, but there are almost as many charging systems as there are local authorities. This was one of the conclusions of the National Consumer Council report that was released a year or so ago. The National Consumer Council, the Audit Commission, local authority associations, many providers and patient organisations now argue that there is a need for much greater national clarity to govern local charging policies—and we endorse that view.
We also take the view that other reforms are needed. During last year's debate, the Minister claimed to have removed any perverse incentives towards placing people in residential care. Such a claim now seems to have been somewhat premature. The Audit Commission said


recently that it is almost always substantially cheaper for local authorities, in the current financial environment, to place people in residential care, even when there is no difference between the gross cost of residential care and care at home. When residents qualify for the residential allowance in independent sector homes, there is an even bigger cost advantage in using residential care.
Local authorities are working hard to maintain people in the community, in spite of that anomaly. Last month, the Audit Commission concluded that it was to many authorities' credit that they were increasing home care in line with the Government's policy, even though it was cheaper for them to make more use of residential care under the rather perverse financial arrangements that underpin the report that we are discussing. There is a clear danger that the successes of community care will gradually be reversed unless the perverse financial incentives are addressed as a matter of urgency.
The threat of more institutionalisation is due in no small part to the impact of the NHS reforms on community care services, which the Government introduced. Competition between hospitals, pressure to increase patient throughput and NHS performance measures have all contributed towards the more rapid discharge of patients into the community. It is a classic case of one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. It is understandable, if not forgivable, when two separate Departments are involved in the decision-making process, but it is incomprehensible when one Department—the Department of Health—is responsible for the mismanagement.
For all the talk of a primary care-led NHS, it is a change in the make-up of the acute health sector that is responsible for driving change in the community sector. It is also becoming increasingly clear that community care services are being overwhelmed with increased responsibilities. Recently, Age Concern reported that elderly people are being forced into residential care due to excessive waits for occupational therapy assessments.
The impact of these policy failures on local authorities is also severe. They have been forced to absorb additional costs shunted on to them by the NHS, for which no financial allowance has been made. In particular, NHS disinvestment from continuing care responsibilities has produced a redefinition of responsibilities between health and social services. The Alzheimer's Disease Society—among many organisations—has voiced concern about the impact of these changes on vulnerable people.
During the 1980s, back-door privatisation was taking place right under the public's nose. There was an unplanned explosion in private residential care, which was encouraged by Government policy, and then it was crudely restrained as benefit bills spiralled out of control. Costs to the taxpayer rocketed from £10 million to over £2,000 million. Those who now have to sell their homes as a consequence of the brakes being slammed on—an estimated 40,000 people a year—are rightly angry because they had fondly believed that the taxes they paid covered care from the cradle to the grave. They now find themselves in a grotesque game of pass the buck as cash-strapped health authorities and local authorities shunt responsibility back and forth.
Worse still, by passing responsibility to individual health authorities to decide which continuing care services should be available to elderly people, the Government

have created a lottery in community care provision. Only a few weeks ago, even the Department was forced to rap the knuckles of health authorities that had produced inappropriate continuing care eligibility criteria.
The picture is clear. It is obvious that the care that a person receives and the price that he pays for it depend on where he lives. We, the Opposition, say that that sort of national lottery should have no part to play in the NHS or in any civilised system of community care.
The report does nothing to correct fundamental deficiencies in the system of providing and funding community care. The Government have produced a system that is chaotic, perverse and fundamentally unfair. The system cannot cope with increased demand because it is riddled with fault lines. Pouring in more money alone will not sort out the mess. The pressing priority is for a far-reaching reform of how the system operates in practice. That requires a new approach. We believe that four reforms are needed.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Labour reforms?

Mr. Milburn: Four Labour reforms are needed, as the Government Whip says from a sedentary position.
First, there is a need to offer more choice for community care service users. The stark lack of choice in the community care market, polarised between fairly low levels of domiciliary provision and fairly high levels of expensive residential provision, often means that intermediate forms of care are unavailable to those who can best benefit from them.
The current gaps in provision deny choice to the individual who needs care, and load unnecessary additional costs on the taxpayer. A range of services is needed, including home-based care, respite care, convalescent care and residential care. We want the Government to remove perverse financial incentives towards more institutional forms of care. Institutionalisation is the very reverse of what community care is supposed to be all about.
In that context, it is disappointing that, through the report, the Minister has decided to retain the requirement that local authorities must spend the bulk of their STG budgets in the independent sector. Surely the requirement for them to do so has long since gone. By and large, there is a well-developed mixed economy of care that is thriving in most parts of the country.
Secondly, there is a need to end the lottery in the provision of community care services. The Government could begin by introducing, after consultation with users, carers, providers and statutory bodies, a national framework for local charging policies. We, the Opposition, support the call that has been made by the Select Committee on Health for a nationally set framework that specifies eligibility criteria for long-term care so as to define what the health service, a national service, should provide. We support that approach. Do the Government support it?
We think that the Select Committee's call for a national long-term care charter so that people may know what they can expect from health, housing and social services is absolutely right. We support that; do the Government?
Thirdly, there is a need to improve standards in community care services. Standards will rise, however, only if there are appropriate safeguards. We, the


Opposition, recognise the benefits that can flow from a mixed economy of social care that involves public and independent providers. We are in favour of diversity. We are in favour also of consistency. Our concern is to ensure that there is a level playing field of high standards in all forms of care in the private sector, in the public sector, in residential provision and in domiciliary provision. I hope that the Minister's response to the moving forward of the consultation process will concur with the Opposition's.
Fourthly, there is a need to end the waste of time and money that now bedevils the planning and supply of community care services. That means finding ways of overcoming differences in values and structures between local government and the NHS that can frustrate joint working. When local authorities and health authorities tussle over responsibilities and resources, it is the elderly person and the disabled person who loses out. We want new, nationally agreed mechanisms—if necessary, enforced—to speed co-operation among the three principal organisations that are charged with the planning and delivery of community care services; health, housing and social services.
The four-point plan that I have outlined would broaden choice, raise standards and provide better value for money. Instead, the Government seem content to pour money into a black hole. Our reforms would be the basis on which to provide long-term care for the elderly in future.
We are proposing a radical shift in the way community care services are planned and delivered. The current system is unfair, restrictive and inefficient. Our proposed changes to community care policies would provide more choice, higher standards and better value for money. Our proposals will help to bring order where there is now chaos, fairness where there is now injustice and consistency where there is now a lottery. Above all, they would bring security to people in old age, where there is now glaring insecurity.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. I shall speak to the Special Grant Report (Wales). Before doing so, however, I take up the Minister's opening statement.
In general terms, the Minister claimed that the Government had introduced a substantial cash increase over a number of years. The Minister may recall that when we were debating the principle of community care in the late 1980s, especially in response to Sir Roy Griffiths's report, he suggested that if community care were introduced a proportion of those who claimed to be inappropriately placed in residential homes and nursing homes might wish to be cared for in their own homes.
The policy was introduced on the basis that a proportion of those claiming to be inappropriately placed would be cared for in their own homes. We now find that the number of people making that choice is much greater than anyone anticipated. The proportion of those who are choosing to stay at home as against going into residential nursing homes is substantially greater than hitherto, and I accept that it is greater than anyone on either side of the House expected. The cost of providing care at home is greater than providing care in a residential home. Local authorities in Wales are saying that the Government have

not gone far enough to meet the demand for care at home. Some local authorities in Wales are saying that the financial shortfall this year is quite substantial.
The Minister said that local authorities should be seeking ways in which to become more cost-effective, by becoming enablers rather than providers. However, it is difficult for local authorities to do that, especially in extremely rural areas such as the one that I represent—the former county of Gwynedd, which is now the two counties of new Gwynedd and Ynys Mon—because there is no private sector to develop. It is therefore difficult for local authorities to consider moving along that line. There is a highly developed voluntary sector, but not an independent sector.
Local authorities in areas of Wales such as the one that I represent therefore do not have a choice, even if they agree with the Government's ideology and accept that that represents the direction in which they should be going. These are important considerations in the context of the debate.
I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) about local authorities in England. Similarly, local authorities in Wales believe that the Government have underestimated the amount that authorities require to meet some of the changes introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget—changes that we all welcome, although they do not go so far as some would have liked. The Government had to make up the funding shortfall for local authorities this year in order to meet those changed circumstances.
I have asked three local authorities in Wales—Ceredigion, Gwynedd and Ynys Mon—about their feelings regarding the provisions made under the order that we are discussing today. As set out in the Government's order, Ceredigion receives about £100,000, Gwynedd receives £191,000 and Ynys Mon receives £96,000. The local authorities tell me that the shortfall for the three counties totals £164,500—in addition to the cut that each local authority says that it will have to make in its general budget, including cuts in community care. I then asked the local authorities to tell me the reasons for that shortfall and the way in which the sums were calculated.
I am told that the Welsh Office estimates were based on figures arrived at after consulting the old counties and using a historical formula. The figures were also based on the current number of people in residential and nursing homes. The local authorities believe that it is also important to take into account those for whom the option of residential or nursing home care is now more attractive as a result of the Budget changes. The local authorities face the added burden of having to assess people for contributions who were previously outside the system. Therefore, there will be additional expenditure.
Local authorities will also have to consider employing more staff or part-time staff to meet the extra workload that the new system involves. The local authorities estimate that there will be more applicants to assess and that the system for assessing short-stay and long-stay patients will differ. As I understand it—perhaps the Minister will clarify this when he winds up the debateshort—stay patients will not benefit from the new Budget announcement, as their contributions will be based on the old system. However, long-term patients will benefit from the new capital threshold. In short, the local authorities


that I have consulted believe that the Government have underestimated the demand and the need for extra staff to deal with the assessment procedures.
The local authorities estimate that the Government have not provided sufficient additional finance this year. If the local authorities' estimates are correct, will the Government do a reassessment during the year to see whether additional funding may be made available? While welcoming the assessment that has been provided through the special grant, I ask the Minister to assess the situation throughout the year and, if the local authorities prove correct, to meet their concerns.

Ms Ann Coffey: I should like to take this opportunity to complain about the small amount of grant that Stockport has received as compensation for the loss of income due to the changes in capital disregard.
The elderly residential standard spending assessment being used for the distribution of the specific grant comprises a number of indicators. These include, first, the number of elderly people living alone; secondly, the number of elderly on income support; thirdly, the number of residents in residential homes. The formula benefits those authorities with greater numbers of people on income support who are less likely to own their own homes. The SSA is reduced for local authorities with greater income as a result of residents having capital assets following the sale of property or receiving occupational pensions.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the all-ages social index is used when calculating the overall SSA. It reflects, among other factors, the proportion of persons living in accommodation that is not self-contained; the proportion of persons without exclusive use of a bath or an inside toilet; and the proportion of elderly persons living in privately rented or housing association accommodation. Thus, if a council has a successful housing policy and also has more elderly people who are owner-occupiers, it will receive less central Government assistance. That is not a point of dispute in itself, but the value that each factor is given when calculating the revenue support grant is indeed a point of dispute.
The Department of Health has commissioned research regarding SSAs in two areas—children and the elderly—and both projects are due to report in June. I believe that that research is important. Before the introduction of the poll tax, the central Government contribution to Stockport, as elsewhere, was about one third of the council's total revenue expenditure on services. Since then, the situation has been reversed. Councils are also capped, which makes the new research very important in identifying indicators that will more sensitively match grant to need.
I return to my complaint about the distribution of the £64.487 million specific grant. As I have said, the SSA is reduced for those authorities which have more elderly people with capital assets—that is, home owners. Yet those authorities will lose income as a result of the capital disregard changes. Stockport calculated that it would need £822,000 to compensate for loss of income—£600,000 to compensate for loss of income from existing residents,

and £222,000 to compensate for existing residents and patients whose capital decline brings them into new eligibility criteria and for new residents and patients admitted to care in 1996–97.
Stockport was given a grant of £331,000, which is half what it needs to meet the known loss of income from existing residents. The Government cannot have it both ways: if the SSA is reduced to reflect expected income from charges in residential and nursing homes, it is not unreasonable to expect those authorities with higher incomes to be compensated at a higher level as a result of the increase in the disregard, as they are likely to lose the most income.
From Stockport's point of view, it is ridiculous that the distribution mechanism for the specific grant is not based on actual loss of income as it was supposed to compensate authorities for loss of income. In a letter to the director of social services, Bob Lewis, on 20 March, the Department of Health said:
the Association's survey of authorities' estimated costs was indeed very helpful to us, particularly in relation to the information about residents already known to the authorities".
It was so helpful that it persuaded the Minister to provide more specific grant overall, but it was not helpful in providing a grant which reflected Stockport's estimated, or even actual, costs.
I understand that the Minister argues that, as it is a one-off payment, applying a different distribution mechanism would risk significant changes to authorities' shares of the funding between the two years. Stockport is grateful for any offer of stability from the Government, but we would have preferred that stability to take account of fairness as well. It is not a fair distribution, particularly as Stockport is a capped authority. The social services division already faces cuts of up to £3 million, which must inevitably affect its ability to deliver support services to elderly and disabled people living at home—that is to say, community care.
The £500,000 shortfall must come from somewhere. The authority already has comprehensive charging policies for support services provided to people living at home. The £500,000 can be made up only at the cost of community care, which is delivered to people at home.
I am absolutely fed up with asking the local authority to consider requests from my constituents for something as simple as a shower, for example. People who cannot get into the bath unaided need a shower, which can make a dramatic difference to their quality of life. They cannot get a shower, because the authority does not have the money for that level of community care provision. That is an absolute disgrace, and the situation will be made much worse by the fact that Stockport has been robbed of £500,000 by the Minister. In future, I shall send all requests from my constituents for showers to the Minister: let him explain why they cannot have them. The authority does not have the money because of the unfairness of the way in which the specific grant has been distributed.
I hope that the Minister will listen to my plea: if later in the year he considers a supplementary grant, Stockport should be top of the list. May we have our £500,000 back?

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I shall confine my comments to the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1996. I shall not make any comments on England, which will give one Minister at least a well deserved respite.


I shall examine the implications of annex B of the report. On 13 April 1993, the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Order 1992 came into force, and it impinges on the report. On 23 February 1995 Welsh Office circular 95/7, headed "NHS Responsibilities for Meeting Continuing Health Care Needs", was put out. The connection between that and the report before us today is that the report builds on a basic principle that the Government are still intent on pursuing—that of means testing.
The Chancellor fiddled with the means testing requirement in the Budget. He thought that he was improving the position so that—rightly, in my view, if one accepts the principle of means testing—people who had a certain amount of capital were able to retain that capital at a higher level than hitherto. None the less, the principle that people who have paid national insurance contributions through their lifetime to ensure that they would not have to dip into their savings in old age is still Government policy and is still contained in the report.
The 1992 order brought nursing homes into the remit of the National Assistance Act 1948. The residential home sector was already covered by that Act, but the private nursing home sector was brought into the same category. The 1995 Welsh Office circular amended the 1991 Welsh Office circular. I remind Ministers, not that they need reminding, of the charade and masquerade—I do not like using those words too often—and the difficulty that the Government put professionals into by that circular.
I am the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and we considered this topic in 1992. On 5 February 1995 I asked a senior officer of the Gwynedd social services department, Mr. Williams, whether the Welsh Office was making the job of professionals impossible through the means testing system, and he agreed. In column 159 of the minutes of evidence, he said:
I quite agree with the sentiments you are expressing. What we have to look at is the pressures on those people in those circumstances, and they are quite appalling. Sometimes it is a kind of social conspiracy, almost, involving a number of people, quite unconsciously, to achieve certain tidy outcomes, which is residential nursing home care.
A tidy outcome is residential nursing home care.
The clear point was that there were two types of people being discharged from hospital to private nursing homes, and that is relevant to the report that we are discussing today. There were the people who knew their rights and who refused to be means tested under the 1991 Welsh Office circular: they said that they would stay unless they were forced to leave. Then there were the others—the majority—who did not have that circular to hand in their hospital beds and who were discharged to a private nursing home under the guise that they had to be means-tested.
Some people knew their rights—they knew that the health authority would have to pay for them to be in a private nursing home if they were discharged—but most people were told a different story by the professionals, who were under enormous pressure in the acute sector to discharge people under an almost false pretence that the law was on the side of the professionals. That is what is behind Mr. Williams' point.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Has my hon. Friend seen the latest statistics—I believe that they date from December 1994, certainly no later than that—which

show that only 45 people in private nursing homes in Wales are paid for by the health authorities? That is about 0.3 per cent. of people in nursing homes in Wales.

Mr. Wardell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am aware of those statistics.
The reluctance of many health authorities in Wales to pay for anyone to be in a private nursing home is shown up clearly in those statistics. I am glad that the Government have addressed that issue. In other words, they eventually—four years later—decided that the situation was not acceptable. They were content to leave that situation for that length of time. They were quick enough to rush legislation through the House yesterday, but they were not prepared to do the same for elderly and vulnerable people. However, I am glad that the Government eventually—slowly, but surely—saw the light.
I am pleased that the change has come about, but the report rests on an important circular, to which I have already referred. It was issued in 1995 by the Welsh Office and amended the circular of 1991. My personal view is that government by circular is not very satisfactory. I am uncomfortable with the way in which circulars are churned out by Government Departments. Nevertheless, the circular on which the report rests is about the discharge of people from hospitals. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me about the current practice in relation to paragraph 25 of that circular.
The report before us today assumes that money will be made available to enable implementation of that paragraph of the circular, which contains four pieces of information that hospitals should make available to patients before discharge. The Welsh Office relies on a manual on hospital discharge practice issued in December 1994, which is the latest in a series of hospital discharge workbooks.
What does the Minister intend to do about information that is clearly not being provided under the terms of the circular? It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure that the structure and operation of the health service is satisfactory. When it is not, what will be done? I shall not read all four of the relevant paragraphs, but perhaps the Minister can deal with them comprehensively. I am sure that he has the circular in front of him, or soon will have.
It states:
hospitals should provide simple written information about how hospital discharge procedures will operate and what will happen if patients need continuing care".
When I visited a hospital recently, I could have caused a major upheaval because I went from bed to bed asking patients who were about to be discharged whether they had received that information. I had the circular in my pocket. The hospital staff looked at me rather charily, wondering what I was doing.
What has the Minister been doing to check that patients who are being discharged are given the relevant information? My guess is that not many patients receive it. I make the same point as in relation to the discharge of means-tested patients between 1991 and 1995: what is the use of a finance order which changes the method of means testing patients who are being discharged if the circular on which the order is based does not do what it should?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): To save the hon. Gentleman time, if he will write to me about the particular hospital


that he visited, which did not seem to be complying with any instructions or guidance from my Department, I shall be more than happy to look into the matter.

Mr. Wardell: I should be more interested if the Minister would write and tell me—or tell the House now—what powers he has to ensure adherence to the guidance. What can he do?
The order may extend and continue, rather than address, the anomaly that, if a person who is to be discharged from hospital to a private nursing home returns to his or her own home, the capital value of that individual's property would not be taken into account at £16,000 or any other level by the local authority in assessing the charges to be levied against that person. I am worried that the Government may seek to correct that anomaly by including the capital value in that calculation, which I would not want them to do.
My third point—I shall not continue the debate until 10 o'clock, although I do not often have the opportunity—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That will not be possible.

Mr. Morgan: That was my fault.

Mr. Wardell: I was informed by a Front-Bench Member that the debate could continue until 10 o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am glad that you have made that point.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The debate can continue until 9.26 pm.

Mr. Wardell: Yes, and I must remember that we have yet to hear the winding-up speeches.
We see in the current system a division of boundaries, whereby private nursing home patients fall into two categories—and those who are not subject to means testing, which the order continues, may be in the same room as those who are. A line is drawn according to whether an individual is to be a social care or a medical care case. I shall not debate the subject of incontinence pads because the Minister must be fed up with the problem of who pays for them.
The hospital doctor and the multi-disciplinary team considering the patient who is to be discharged will have to decide his or her future. Whatever their decision, if no long-term beds are available in the hospital service, the individual who is paid for by the health authority will be placed in a private nursing home. Some patients pay for themselves, whatever the capital limits, and some do not. The order builds on that divisive situation.
Although I am pleased in one sense that the Government have at last ended the anomaly introduced by the 1991 Welsh Office circular, even though it has taken them four years to learn the folly of their ways, I remain concerned that, despite the new capital limits, we are left with a means-tested system which does not make universal provision but is divisive and leads to some patients in the same institution being means-tested while others are not.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: This is almost the last debate of this part of the current Session, and I suppose that Oscar Wilde might have said that nothing recedes like the recess for those of us who are left here this Wednesday night.
The change in the capital disregards that created the need for the order are part of the Government's two-pronged approach to ease the problem facing people with reasonable means who—because they scrimped and saved to purchase their homes, buy shares or acquire pension entitlements—fail the means test. The Prime Minister has made a big fuss in speeches over the past year or two, and as recently as last Friday, of using a phrase about wealth cascading down through the generations.
The problem is that wealth has not been cascading down the generations. This measure and others that we expect later this year are an attempt to make the Prime Minister's idealised version of the country which he is running appear to come true. I understand that about 40,000 people a year who have failed a means test for community care eventually have to sell their houses. One of the favourite phrases of the last Prime Minister was "a property-owning democracy". For many elderly people, this is a property-disowning democracy for those who require a long spell of care.
The Government have set about trying to remedy the problem created by their changes to the structure of the NHS and local authority social services provision. The problem for them is that their rhetoric has gone one way and their policy actions another, causing many people to sell their houses so as to stay in nursing homes and old people's homes. I hope that the Minister will shortly be able to confirm my figure of 40,000 houses a year having to be sold to enable people to have long-term care, and will tell us by how much he expects the figure to fall as a result of the change to the capital disregard.
My figures do not come from the Government—

Mr. Streeter: Ah!

Mr. Morgan: The Government Whip need not get so excited. I make no apology for taking my figures from Laing and Buisson, commonly regarded as the bible on all matters relating to long-term care. The figure was given in recent evidence to the Health Select Committee, but if it is wrong I am happy to be corrected. The important thing is to find out how many fewer houses will have to be sold to allow for nursing home care as a result of this measure.
I wonder whether the Government will be able to put some more flesh on the speech made by the Prime Minister on Friday, to cover the other aspect of the Government's two-pronged approach. The Government want to introduce a partnership insurance scheme under which they will pay for long-term care after the first three years provided that people buy insurance for those first three years. Will that have a direct impact on the fear that old people have that they may not in the end be able to pass on their houses to relatives because they will have to trade their houses in for long-term care?
This debate also enables us to touch on other significant changes going on simultaneously. The change we are discussing tonight will take effect from Easter Monday, but on 1 April three other changes in related areas took effect. I hope that you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I would be in order if I mentioned them.
The first change concerns the new statutory right of a carer to have his or her needs assessed by local authorities. Thus local authorities will become instrumental in determining whether people need to go into old people's homes; if they decide that they do, the means-testing operation will be triggered. That in turn will depend on whether a carer at home can last out without becoming ill from strain and stress. That again depends on whether enough respite care is available—usually from a son, daughter or spouse. This change may also have a bearing on the number of people affected by the order.
The second change dating from 1 April concerns the new health authorities and local authorities in England and Wales. In Wales until 1 April, county council social service departments and health authorities had more or less identical boundaries, so there was a natural tendency to co-operate and work together. Pembrokeshire was the one exception, but that did not cause much difficulty, because it remained a subdivision of a social services authority.
During the coming year, the Minister will need to ensure that the former tendency towards co-operative working arrangements between health authorities and social service departments—in respect of hospital discharge, for instance—is not dissipated. Instead of eight or nine health authorities and social service authorities in Wales, there will now be five and 22 respectively. The Minister will need to monitor the situation over the next 12 months to be sure that the system does not start falling apart.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) raised another important issue relating to the changes which were made recently, and which are still being digested. They are significant to the order. The orders for England and Wales refer to the fact that they are based on the provisions that have been around since 1948 under which one can means-test anyone who goes to a nursing home or old people's home.
The point raised by my hon. Friend is significant because, until a few months ago, one did not have to go into a nursing home or an old people's home. If a person wanted to remain in a long-stay bed in the geriatric ward of his local hospital, he could insist on doing so. A person may believe that that choice will cost him a fortune and that he may have to sell his house to fund it, but he would be perfectly within his rights to insist on a bed.
That voluntary principle has now gone. The change does not equal continuity with the previous provisions. What was voluntary is now compulsory. If a health authority says that someone must go into a nursing home or an old people's home, it has the force of law behind it. Until the ombudsman's case—

Mr. Bowis: indicated dissent.

Mr. Morgan: I sorry that I have to cross swords with the Minister, but he is wrong. Should he check before the Under-Secretary of State for Wales replies to the debate, he will find that my argument is not ill founded.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: The crucial point behind the remarks of my hon. Friend is that, if it was decided under

the old system that existed until a few months ago that an elderly person needed to be discharged to a private nursing home, that person would now be asked whether he would prefer to be means-tested or not. If he said that he preferred not to be means-tested, the health authority would face the dilemma of either having to keep that person in a bed or paying for him to go to a nursing home.

Mr. Bowis: indicated dissent.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is right, and I am pleased that he has clarified the matter for the Under-Secretary of State for Health, although I note that the hon. Gentleman is still shaking his head. I hope that the advice offered by the Welsh Office Minister will clarify the matter for the Minister responsible for England. I can only express a certain amount of gratitude for the fact that he is not responsible for Wales.
A level playing field must be established between domiciliary and residential care. That is at the heart of the debate. The orders for England and Wales apply only to people going into nursing homes or old people's homes. They do not apply, and do not increase the capital disregard for those who come out of hospital, or who have never been in hospital, who require domiciliary care. The orders do not have any effect on that care, except perhaps by moral suasion or implication, without any force of law.
The statute that we will pass just has an impact on people going into old people's homes and residential care homes. That poses a real problem for the Government, because true community care must involve the domiciliary care package. I would go further, because I believe that it must give preference to domiciliary care to be true community care.
The Government have always had the problem of not being sure whether nursing care homes, some of which often consist of 50 beds or perhaps 100 beds, or old people's homes are equivalent to community care. What is the difference between a cottage hospital, which is not considered to offer community care, and a large nursing home with 50 or 100 beds? The latter is considered to be equivalent to community care—search me why—and the other is considered as NHS institutional care. That distinction is rubbish.
The actual community care that we should provide is domiciliary care, yet the order does not refer to it. The least we could ask for is a level playing field. One may want to increase the capital disregards so that people do not have to sell their houses, or get rid of the savings that they might otherwise be able to pass on to their children, to fund long-term care in a nursing home or in an old people's home, but why on earth should not the same rules apply, with the same force of statute to raise the capital disregards, to domiciliary care packages? Let us at least have a level playing field. In my opinion we should go beyond that; domiciliary care should come first, because it represents true community care.
I hope that the Minister will address that problem. Perhaps he will give the Government's up-to-date thinking at this crucial stage, when they are devoting so much effort, as late as Friday, into trying to explain how wealth will still cascade down the generations in a way that is compatible with their thinking on community care. We want to know their thinking on such care.
Does it include domiciliary care in one's own home? Just as important as passing on one's home to a child or grandchild is the right to stay in that home until it is


medically unavoidable that one has to have institutional care in, for example, an old people's home or a nursing home. We heard nothing about that from the Minister. He simply throws around the phrase "community care" but does not say why the measures that we are discussing avoid domiciliary care, which is where the interface exists between the NHS and social service departments.
There has been a major withdrawal by the NHS from long-term care provision and even from care in the community. District nurses no longer carry out such a wide range of functions as they used to. There is now an absurd distinction between social bathing, usually carried out by home carers, and medical bathing, which has to be done by district nurses. I am told that, at least for men, the distinction is based on whether the bathing includes bathing below the waist. If it does, it must be done by a district nurse.
A constituent of mine has severe leg ulcers. If they are suppurating, the dressings are changed by the district nurse; if they are merely quiescent, they are changed by the home carer. That would have been absurd five years ago, but the NHS no longer provides what used to be considered the proper caring component of the NHS district nursing function.
Why do the Government consider it wise for the NHS to withdraw from that sphere and leave it to the local authority when, at the same time, they are doing absolutely nothing to change the capital disregards for local authorities when they—the local authorities—come to decide whether they should be means-testing the person involved?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) was right to say that there is no rhyme or reason in the Government's explanation of how they have calculated the amounts to be given to English and Welsh authorities. It is a wholly improper procedure. The purpose of the statute is to compensate local authorities for the income that they will lose because of their inability to means-test people with an income of less than £8,000 or less than £16,000.
The measure is meant to compensate them, but it will not, because the calculation is made on the original needs basis, which has nothing to do with the compensation requirement. Some authorities will gain and some will lose, but the outcome bears no relation to the intention behind the measures. Just as people were supposed to be checking what public expenditure was used for, these measures may finish up before the Public Accounts Committee as legislative absurdities. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.
The point made by the hon. Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Jones) was also well taken. In some areas there are many private nursing homes, but in others there are not. That is a big problem. I have already referred to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower.
On the same day the Government laid the English and Welsh orders, the Treasury Select Committee had asked the Government whether it was true that the Government had not properly estimated the additional expenses faced by local authorities. It had been estimated that the cost of changing the capital disregard would be £60 million. The Committee said that it thought that the Government had underestimated the amount. The Treasury wrote back to the

Committee in January, saying that there was no problem and that local authority social service departments would be able to act as "gatekeepers". The Committee replied that it did not think that that was the case and asked the Government to check with local authorities and talk to social workers.
The ultimate humiliation for a Government who sometimes pride themselves on being careful with public expenditure occurred on 18 March when—[Interruption.] Before the Under-Secretary of State for Wales cheers, perhaps he had better listen to what the Treasury said to the Treasury Select Committee, on the same day that the orders were laid, and on this very subject.
Paragraph 51 of the Government's response to the Treasury Committee's report on this year's Budget states:
The Government has now consulted with the local authorities and
has listened to their views on the net increase in costs they face as a result of the increase in the disregard levels. In light of further evaluation of the information provided by the local authorities, the Government has decided, subject to Parliamentary approval, to make an increased provision available to local authorities. This provision will be charged to the Reserve, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure in 1996–97.
What we are doing tonight is not the full story. At a later date the Government will have to come back with a different figure, and apologise to the House for having got their figures wrong in the first place. Why did they get their figures wrong in the first place? Because, as always, they did not ask the people who would be affected. They did not ask the local authorities what figure they would face as a result of the change in the capital disregard.
The Government have had to apologise to the Treasury Select Committee. I hope that, as a representative of a Government who clearly cannot count because they do not consult, the Minister will now apologise to the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): When I faced the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) across the Dispatch Box yesterday in connection with a different matter, I hoped that I would not have to see him again before Easter. Sadly, however, that was not to be.
As usual, Opposition Members have found little positive to say, but the plain fact is that our community care reforms are working. It was clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) that he does not appreciate that the policy must be planned over 10 years before its full fruition: we are not even a third of the way through that process. More people are being cared for in their own homes or in homely residential care in their local communities, and they have more choice about how they receive the care that they need. That is what people want, and that is what our policies are delivering for them.
Let me deal with some of the serious points raised by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Jones) said that the capital limit special grant in Wales was underfunded, and that he had spoken to some county councils in Wales. We also asked councils to give us their estimates of the costs that they would face, and they came up with a figure of roughly £3 million. In fact, we are providing £3.88 million, which is more than they asked for.
Before the hon. Gentleman suggests that our method of calculation underestimated future demand for places, let me tell him that we considered not only the current


number of people in care but the potential increase for most people who would now find it a more attractive option, because they would not have to contribute. I hope that that sets his mind at rest.
The hon. Gentleman asked about additional mid-year funding. We shall look at the outcome at the end of this year, and if there are lessons to be learned, we shall consider the funds that we shall provide in 1997–98.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey)—who seems to have lost interest in the debate for the moment—was rather critical of the formula on the basis of which her authority claimed to have been disadvantaged. As she will know, Stockport is a member of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and the formula that was used was recommended by the association. She will not need me to tell her that it is controlled by her party. I suggest with respect, therefore, that she write to her representatives on the authority and complain as bitterly to them as she did to the Government earlier.
With regard to resources for her authority, between 1990–91 and 1996–97, total personal social service resources for Stockport have increased by 58 per cent. in real terms. In the past year, total resources for community care have increased by 10 per cent.—the same as elsewhere in England, so her authority has not been disadvantaged.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) was, as usual, meticulous in his approach. He told us the touching story of his visiting hospitals to ask patients questions, but the first question that he should have asked—and I am sure I know what the answer would have been, almost universally—was whether they wanted to leave hospital. The vast majority of people in hospital want to go home or just to get out. If he knows of anyone who would prefer to be in hospital than to go home, I should like to know who it is and what the circumstances are.
The hon. Gentleman talked about people staying in hospital indefinitely—these mythical people who might choose to stay there. He must know that no one has ever had the right to stay in hospital indefinitely. He will have read and understood the 1995 guidance on national health service responsibilities for long-term care. It is not a change in policy, as he implied.
We have confirmed and clarified the health service's responsibilities for meeting the needs of people with continuing health care needs, whether in hospital, in the community or in other settings. From 1 April, health authorities have been required to publish policies and eligibility criteria, which make clear their commitment and the basis on which decisions in individual cases are taken.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Richards: With respect, I have only a few minutes left and I want to cover many more points.
The hon. Gentleman asked me sincerely what I would do if hospitals did not provide the information that they should be providing. Clearly, my officials and I will consider and monitor that closely. He asked about the difference in assessing short-stay and long-stay residents. Local authorities can use the same financial assessment and capital limits for both, but anyone who stays less than eight weeks does not have to be assessed. The local authority can set what one might describe as a reasonable charge.
The Department of Social Security will be using two sets of limits. People who go into residential care for only short periods will not be reassessed for income support based on the higher capital limits. It would be disruptive to reassess them for income support at such frequent intervals. The hon. Gentleman raised some more points, on which I will write to him, but I must deal with other points.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West raised the issue of 40,000 houses sold per year. I do not know where he got that figure from. I am not aware that it is a Government figure. I should like to know where he got it from to find out whether we can attach any credence it.
The hon. Member for Darlington did not, of course, raise the issue of funding, although he came up with a four-point plan and talked about planning, revaluation and changes after only three years. I know that, by diktat of the Leader of the Opposition, he is not allowed to do that, but the British people are entitled to know what budgetary or financial resource changes would be implied were there to be a Labour Government.
We are committed to ensuring choice in community care. Choice underpins our reforms. We do not mean choice at any price. Public funds are limited and choice must be balanced against cost. But we do mean people having a real say in where they receive the care that they need. The direction on choice was introduced specifically to give people that say. Local authorities need to take that carefully into account when they plan their use of their community care budgets.
If any individual is not satisfied with his or her care arrangements, he or she has, of course, the right to take that up through the complaints procedure. We have made it clear to authorities that we expect them to have complaints procedures which people know about and which are easy to use.
Community care is all about individuals. It is about making sure that individuals receive the care and support that they need. But it is also about making sure that people who need community care and their carers are involved more widely in helping to shape the services provided to their communities.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Richards: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I am very pleased that we have been able to provide the extra help with regard to capital disregard for people in residential and nursing homes. We know that it has been widely welcomed. We have two aims—to help people who have worked hard and saved prudently, and to avoid putting too heavy a burden on taxpayers. The new limits strike the right balance.
The resources—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [29 March].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 17) (House of Commons Paper No. 299), which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.

Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1996 (House of Commons Paper No. 297), which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Orders of the Day — Antarctica

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am very pleased to have another debate on Government policy towards Antarctica. I am grateful that it is at a reasonable hour because, on other occasions, such debates have taken place in the middle of the night. I have a personal fascination for the subject and that is why I have applied for previous Adjournment debates on it.
There have been two recent pieces of legislation on Antarctica. The first was the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, which was strongly opposed by the Opposition because it envisaged the possibility of mineral exploration in Antarctica for commercial gain, which was completely at variance with the earlier 1959 treaty. I am glad to say that that legislation has now been superseded by the Antarctic Act 1994, which gives effect to the environmental protocol signed in Madrid in 1991. That was an enormous step forward.
Many people might ask why the House of Commons is debating Antarctica and what relevance it has to the everyday lives of ordinary people. I can understand why people might ask that question, but the answer is simple. We can study in Antarctica a continent in more or less its pristine beauty. We can also study at first hand the effects of gross exploitation of, in particular, the fauna of the continent and the seas around it, and the destruction of the large whale population within the area, a destruction that has meant that now only the Minke whales have a population of anything like the natural size of 100 years ago. Every other species of whale is grossly threatened. In some cases, the numbers surviving are so small that it is difficult to see how they can breed successfully in the future without developing genetic disorders.
In the past, the area has been over-fished. That is now more or less under control, but the vast amount of krill that have been taken out of Antarctica is a cause for concern because that has a knock-on effect on the natural life cycle of so many other mammals and fish within the seas around Antarctica.
Aside from the carnage of the whale population and the destruction of so many beautiful mammals, Antarctica has been a place of inspiration to many people, not only scientific explorers. The wonderful poem "The Ancient Mariner" is about a journey to the Antarctic, and is a description of the beauties of the southern ocean.
My purpose in this debate is to recognise what has gone before. Even at the height of the cold war, during the 1957 International Geophysical Year, countries were able to get together and consider ways of protecting and preserving Antarctica as a place of beauty and peace. In 1959, the treaty was signed at Washington. The document is held by the United States Government in Washington, as host to the signatories. It is still a relevant document which protects the continent in its natural form and beauty from war and military presence. That was an enormous step forward.
Moves were made by a number of people who had an eye, albeit recognising the enormous technical difficulties, to the possibilities of exploitation of minerals in Antarctica. There are possibly vast mineral resources


there. That was what was behind the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989 and the interests of a number of international mining and oil companies. We have to recognise that public opinion and the campaigns around the world in favour of an Antarctic world park have had considerable impact. A number of Governments—perhaps surprising Governments in some cases—supported the concept of a world park and a place of preservation and peace.
The Madrid protocol was finally agreed in 1991. There was a great deal in it. I shall not quote it all, but I should like to mention a few points from it. Crucially, it said that there should be a moratorium on all mining or mineral exploration activities for at least 50 years. It is not a 50-year moratorium. It is 50 years in its initial stage. I would not want any long-sighted executives of oil or mining companies to be salivating in offices at the thought of mining exploration in 50 years. I hope that there will never be any mining exploration in the Antarctic, and the environmental protocol looked to that.
The protocol also confirmed the permanent protection of the environment and flora and fauna of the continent. That is important. Many people believe that Antarctica is a huge wilderness, and therefore that there is no great threat to it, but it has a delicate ecosystem. It is not a place of high precipitation—indeed, there is very little. There is a great deal of snow and ice blowing about and there are enormous ranges of temperatures and desperate cold, but it is a fragile ecosystem.
As it is so cold most of the time, the speed of biodegradability is slow, so environmental damage from oil spills or pollution of any sort takes far longer to be corrected by any natural process than it would in a tropical, sub-tropical or temperate climate such as we live in. An important part of the protocol established the principle of environmental impact assessment of all visits to the Antarctic by anyone—scientific researchers, tourists or whoever else.
Greenpeace has done a great deal of work on the Antarctic and has campaigned vigorously. Greenpeace International should be commended for the work that it has done internationally. Its Antarctic campaigner, Iain Redditch, who is based in Amsterdam, should be congratulated on the work that he has done to persuade so many Governments to speed up the ratification process.
In 1994–95, the Greenpeace ship toured several Antarctic bases—not by any means in a spirit of hostility. It gave due notice to the bases' occupants and sought to examine what was happening, to check the effects of the 1991 environmental protocol and to discover what the bases were doing to clean up their act. It visited eight stations, which were staffed by people from Brazil, Poland, Peru, South Korea, Argentina, Chile, China and Russia. Argentina and Chile staffed two bases each. Greenpeace would have liked to visit more bases, but the process takes time and the journey is difficult.
The Greenpeace report said:
Overall, Greenpeace found that over three years after the signing of the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection, countries with Antarctic bases are continuing to violate the Madrid Protocol's provisions, and many working on the continent are unaware of the Madrid Protocol's requirements.
It was especially scathing about the conditions at the Chinese station, where a large amount of rubbish had been dumped and which was causing environmental damage. It is important that we recognise the importance of having environmental impact assessments and continuing inspection and monitoring of what happens at the bases.
If we are to achieve the intended effect of the 1959 treaty and of the 1991 Madrid protocol, the question of ratification of the treaty is important. There are 26 signatory nations to the treaty. They are "consultative parties" in the wording of the treaty and 20 have ratified the Madrid protocol, including Britain. There are six still to go. Four of them look as though they will ratify in the near future with no great problem envisaged.
The greatest delay involves Russia and Japan. I would be grateful if the Minister could say what pressures the Foreign Office and British diplomats in those countries are applying to make it clear that the House has passed the Antarctic Act 1994. We have ratified the treaty and want it to be ratified by all the nations concerned. Once 24 nations have ratified it, I should have thought that the idea that Russia and Japan are the slowest would embarrass them. I should like to hear that the British Government will do their utmost to encourage them not to be way behind everyone else in ratifying.
The Russian political system is in turmoil and there is uncertainty about what will happen there. In Japan, there is a problem that is not linked to the Antarctic treaty—its predilection for defying the International Whaling Commission by continuing its so-called scientific whaling of Minke whales. It took 300 from Antarctic waters in the past year. There is an erroneous linkage of the two issues. The environmental protection of the Antarctic stands alone, and it is vital that Japan ratifies the treaty.
My second main question involves the establishment of the secretariat envisaged in the 1991 Madrid protocol. It is essential that a secretariat for the Antarctic should be set up so that there is a central point of contact for discussion, for environmental impact assessment studies to be lodged and for monitoring the future of the Antarctic and the growing number of people who seek to visit it, and the possible dangers that go with that. That is no minor point. It is important that we get the secretariat up and running as soon as possible.
I should not have thought that the issue of where the secretariat is to be sited would be greatly controversial, but it appears to have become so. Many treaty nations feel that it should be sited in a gateway nation to the Antarctic. The gateway nations are Chile, Argentina, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. There is a considerable head of steam among the majority of treaty nations to site the secretariat in Argentina. Unfortunately, I understand from previous parliamentary answers that I have received from the Minister that the British Government are not disposed towards it being sited there because they do not want it sited in a country that has conflicting pre-1959 claims to Antarctic lands.
As the claims are held in abeyance for the duration of the treaty and the protocols following on from it, the conflicting claims are somewhat academic in many ways. Exactly the same argument about conflicting claims could apply to most other signatory nations. Argentina has not opposed the convention on the preservation of marine life in the Antarctic being based in Australia. So I hope that the British Government will accept that it is important to get the secretariat up and running, and that a majority of treaty nations support it being sited in Argentina.
During a recent visit to this country of the Argentine Foreign Minister, I took part in one of the discussions with him and mentioned the issue. I understand that,


at a later meeting with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the establishment of the secretariat was discussed with the Argentine Foreign Minister. I would be obliged if the Minister could tell us exactly what went on at those discussions. Should President Menem of Argentina visit this country, that would presumably be one of the issues that would be discussed with him. It is important that we have a sensible relationship with Argentina. It is not particularly helpful if we adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude towards the location of the secretariat.
British standing on the Antarctic is good. The British Antarctic Survey has conducted high-quality scientific and biological research in the area for many years. It has produced high-quality reports and has a very high standing indeed. The work done there by Joe Farman and others in discovering the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic has worldwide implications.
However, British standing has been diminished by the Government's attitude to the location of the secretariat. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the British Government can do quite a lot in that area to ensure that the secretariat is established and up and running as soon as possible. It is some years since the Madrid protocol and the Antarctic Act. It is time that we moved on and got the secretariat working.
Thirdly, article 16 of the protocol, on liability for damage and destruction that happens in Antarctica, has been under discussion for about four years. I well remember that, when the Antarctic Bill was being pushed through the House by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—as a private Member's Bill with Government support — liability for damage and destruction was debated extensively in the Standing Committee. We discussed whether an expedition's individual members were responsible for any damage, or whether it should be the host country of the expedition. We also discussed what should happen if a ship sank or an aircraft crashed in the Antarctic.
The question of liability has to be sorted out. The growth of tourism in the area has been considerable. Until a secretariat is established and we have total adherence to the guidelines on Antarctic tourism and non-governmental organisation activities adopted in Seoul, Korea in April 1994, the dangers of damage to the environment and the need to clean it up are considerable. I would be grateful if the Minister could let me know what is being done on that question and how it will be sorted out.
In four years of informal meetings, why have non-governmental organisations been continually excluded from the discussions, when they have shown that they have an enormous and responsible interest in the Antarctic and much expertise to contribute to the discussions?
My fourth question for the Minister concerns the future of the Faraday base, which was one of the bases owned and run by the British Antarctic Survey. It was due to be closed and demolished and the equipment brought back to this country. Instead, there was an agreement to transfer the base and its equipment to the Government of the Ukraine, which was a major contributor to the former

Soviet Union's scientific efforts in Antarctica. They felt that it would be useful to have a base—and they have now got the base, which is a good thing.
The Ukraine agreed to continue to produce the meteorological information that had been collected at the base—it will be handed over to the British Antarctic Survey. I trust that—like all scientific information collected in Antarctica—there will be the normal degree of transparency and there will be a widespread publication of the results. It is good that the Government of the Ukraine have the base and that it is working.
However, the Ukraine has serious problems in relation to Government resources and spending. The base would have had to have been upgraded considerably had the British Antarctic Survey kept it. Is Britain using its expertise and assisting in ensuring that the base is upgraded so that waste disposal systems, fuel systems and energy systems are the best and the safest, and cause the least possible environmental damage? Those issues are extremely important in such a fragile ecosystem.
Antarctica is a beautiful place, but it is also a great weather vane and a source of great information that is of value to the rest of the world. Earlier, I mentioned the work done by Farman and others at the British Antarctic Survey in discovering the hole in the ozone layer. Had the British Antarctic Survey not been doing that work and had other scientists not been doing work on air pollution and sunlight within the Antarctic, we may not have known the disastrous effects of chlorofluorocarbons within our atmosphere and of the continual chemical process that is set off in the upper atmosphere by the release of chlorine gas.
However, we would have known about the growth of skin cancers in the southern continents—in Chile, in Argentina, and in Australia in particular. We are now finding out the effects of ozone depletion in the northern hemisphere. That had the knock-on effect of the Montreal protocol on the phasing out of CFCs. I wish it was being done more quickly and that it had been done immediately, but at least the information was there in the first place. Perhaps the world woke up and recognised that there were limits to the amount of pollution that it can put into the atmosphere.
One can drill into the Antarctic ice, take out an ice core and measure what the exact state of the world's atmosphere was like at the time of the Romans, at the time of Christ and at the time of the Norman conquests. One can measure exactly what the air was like, one can see the differing levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, one can see the differing levels of pollution, and one can see the effects and dangers of global warming. It is important that we are able to do that. I refer also to the current process of melting off parts of the Antarctic ice cover—all sorts of things can be measured.
It is important that we recognise that Antarctica is a place for the whole world; that it is a place of international importance and heritage. We would not have got this far if people had not wanted to undertake scientific research there. Above all, people have not said that this is a place that we can exploit and destroy—instead, they have said that this is a place that we want to protect in all its beauty and learn lessons from. Many environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace International, have campaigned on behalf of the Antarctic. That has been a welcome and an enormous contribution.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is pleased with the progress that has been made in the passage of the Antarctic Act 1994 through the House. I hope that he will do everything that he can to ensure further ratification of the treaty and the establishment of the secretariat, which is very much part of the treaty, and of the environmental protocol that goes with it.
I hope that the Minister will give us some hope that the British Government will not be the last in the line in this but, instead, will be a mover and a shaker. I hope that he is able to assure us that all the campaigning that achieved the Madrid protocol and a change in attitude towards the Antarctic will get the secretariat established and will ensure that environmental impact statements are done thoroughly and that Antarctica is properly protected, as it has to be.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for securing the Adjournment debate, for two reasons. First, he is raising once again the extremely important issue of Antarctica. The hon. Gentleman has said that he has a personal fascination for it. I am aware that, both in 1991 and in 1994, Adjournment debates along the same lines as this evening's debate were conducted. It is useful that we have the opportunity for periodic updates as the situation in the Antarctic moves on, quite rapidly. Secondly, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of having the last word in the House before the Easter recess. It is an unusual privilege and one that I enjoy, but I hope that I do not have it too often.
I largely share the hon. Gentleman's interest in and fascination for what goes on in the Antarctic. Although, as part of my remit, I have not yet had a chance to get down to the Antarctic, a month ago I visited the British Antarctic Survey and Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge. I had the opportunity to hear at first hand of the work of our scientists in Antarctica. I was greatly impressed by what I heard and I whole-heartedly endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of their work, the vital need for humanity to understand what is happening and the value of the research that is being done in trying to alert us to possible future danger.
We as a country are a major player in the Antarctic treaty system. Our long-standing presence in Antarctica is provided by a programme of first-class scientific research, which is the envy of most of our Antarctic treaty partners. We are committed to environmental protection in Antarctica. It is our policy to maintain that position and to maintain our lead.
I shall take up the detail of some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and try to deal with them. First, there is the implementation of the environmental protocol. The United Kingdom ratified the protocol in April 1995. We have already actively implemented all its provisions. We were in the vanguard of treaty partners in introducing domestic enabling legislation. The Antarctic Regulations 1995 are now fully in force, as is much of the Antarctic Act 1994. Steps are in hand to bring the remaining sections into force as soon as possible, and I trust before the next austral season. The legislation provides a tough framework within which to meet our obligations under the protocol.
United Kingdom activities in Antarctica will take due account of the need to minimise environmental damage. The protocol cannot enter into force, however, until it is ratified by all 26 consultative parties. As the hon. Gentleman said, only 20 have done so far. We shall continue to press the others to join us in ratifying the protocol.
The six remaining parties are Belgium, Finland, India, Japan, Russia and the United States. They will be pressed to ratify during the forthcoming treaty consultative meeting. The most likely forecast, unfortunately, is that that will not happen overnight. We very much hope, however, that the protocol will come into force within the next two years. We look forward to that time in eager anticipation.
The United Kingdom's main operator in Antarctica, the British Antarctic Survey, has already introduced measures and procedures to address the protocol.

Mr. Corbyn: What signs has the Minister received from the Japanese Government, and the Japanese Parliament especially, of the likelihood of early consideration of ratification of the treaty? It is my understanding that the Japanese response is likely to be the greatest stumbling block. The other five nations, while late and slow, are likely, it seems, to endorse the protocol.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. I think that the Japanese are the most difficult to persuade. We are engaged in substantial dialogue with them. We are examining the issues in detail. I hope that they will be persuaded to ratify the protocol. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we shall win the argument, but we will try our hardest to do so.
The environmental impact assessment of major proposed developments has been carried out and tough waste management procedures have been introduced. When I was in Cambridge I saw how effectively we are implementing those procedures, which include retrograding waste materials out of Antarctica. To put that into usual English, we are taking all waste away with us.
Abandoned United Kingdom bases have been surveyed and cleaned up—I saw pictures of what has been done and it is extremely impressive—including a major renovation in the past field season of the designated historic site of Port Lockroy, a United Kingdom presence in Antarctica dating back to the early 1940s. In addition, the British Antarctic Survey has produced a waste management audit, oil spill contingency plans for its bases and ships, and new management plans for protected sites. A number of United Kingdom initiatives have been used as model examples by other Antarctic treaty parties. We remain at the forefront of developing new ideas for environmental protection.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the Antarctic treaty secretariat. I agree that the establishment of a secretariat for the Antarctic treaty will be a major asset in the successful operation of the Antarctic treaty system. It will greatly enhance the implementation of the environmental protocol when it comes into force. Indeed, the United Kingdom has for many years urged that a secretariat be set up.
One of the most important criteria for hosting such a secretariat—which the hon. Gentleman identified in an Adjournment debate in July 1994—is the need for


neutrality in terms of Antarctic claims. We do not see how a treaty party that has a territorial claim against another treaty party can meet that criterion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Chile, Argentina and the United Kingdom share a claim for the same patch.
The Government believe that, out of the 26 signatories, it should be possible to find another site that would be uncontroversial where we could locate the secretariat. Unfortunately, that has not yet proved to be the case and I suggest that Argentina should make a concession and agree to a neutral site. I do not believe that the United Kingdom should make a concession to one of the parties that will ultimately test our claims in the Antarctic.
The forthcoming Antarctic treaty consultative meeting, which will be held in the Netherlands on 29 April for 12 days, will raise several issues. The first concerns the transitional environmental working group. It was established last year as the interim institution for the committee for environmental protection—a new body that will come into being when the protocol is in force. Unfortunately, the first meeting of the TEWG last year was not a resounding success.
At Utrecht, the United Kingdom will attempt to regalvanise the working group. We shall propose that it be given four or five key tasks to address and no more so that it may focus effectively on matters of prime importance. We shall also propose that the momentum continue between sessions through correspondence groups acting through nominated co-ordinators so that the impetus of progress is not lost.
The future success of the protocol depends in part on the effective operation of the committee for environmental protection, which, in turn, hinges on the transitional group getting off to a good start. We shall do all we can to assist that process.
Secondly, there is the question of the liability annexe—an issue raised specifically by the hon. Gentleman. The treaty parties are committed to negotiating a further annexe to the environmental protocol in order to address liability for environmental damage in Antarctica. We are actively engaged in that process. Liability regulations would act as a deterrent to environmental damage and would also help to achieve clean-up and restoration in the event of such damage occurring. It is vital that the liability regime should not only be legally competent but be designed to address the realities of Antarctica. Negotiations must engage not only lawyers, but those who are involved in Antarctica and who are aware of its special and harsh qualities and of the extreme difficulties of operating in that region.
A liability regime that did not take such factors into account would be unworkable. It could cost a huge amount of money, with no quantifiable environmental benefit. It could also prove damaging to our science programme in Antarctica, where resources would have to be deployed to meet an ill-designed liability regime. We believe, therefore, that it is important to get the basis of the regime right. We are not satisfied that we have currently reached that degree of consensus.

Mr. Corbyn: I understand what the Minister is saying. I am looking for some hope that after four years of informal discussion we are in a position to reach an

agreement on a liability regime. In the meantime, people are travelling to the Antarctic and there is a danger of oil spills, ship wrecks and aircraft crashes, as have happened in the past. The longer we delay in setting up a liability regime, the greater the danger of pollution in the area.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: All of us who are concerned about maintaining the ecological strength of the Antarctic would agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. I mentioned the subject when I visited the Antarctica survey team in Cambridge. We have not yet got to the stage of an enormous ecological liability threat, given the current amount of tourism and the amount of work being done in the Antarctic. We have a little time, but nobody should be complacent, and we must try to move forward as fast as possible.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The United Kingdom Government will make every effort to do so. However, it is never easy to obtain a consensus among 26 parties, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Tourism is related to that point and continues to grow in Antarctica. Almost 10,000 tourists visited the continent in the past austral summer—most by ship-borne cruises. All the information that I have seen suggests that the tourists behaved well. Those who visited British bases looked after them well and complied with the strict terms we have laid down about going ashore and what they were allowed to do when ashore. We insist that any waste that the tourists may produce has to be removed with them.
Tourism is a legitimate activity in Antarctica and, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, that will be the reality in the future. We could not ban tourism in that part of the world, but—as the hon. Gentleman said tonight and in July 1994—it needs to be controlled. Adequate means to do so are available. It will require effective implementation of the protocol, not the imposition of yet more regulations. We have the framework, but we must ensure that the framework is properly enforced.
The UK will provide the latest update on tourism to the forthcoming Antarctic treaty consultative meeting. We were a major partner this past season to a US programme to identify wildlife sites of major importance to tourism. The results of that will also be presented at the Utrecht meeting.
We are also keen to promote port state jurisdiction to ensure that rigorous standards can be met by vessels and aircraft going to Antarctica. Most of those leave from the so-called gateway ports, which include Stanley in the Falkland Islands in our jurisdiction.
United Kingdom domestic legislation already incorporates the concept of port state jurisdiction. We see merit in extending that to wider Antarctic communities and enforcing it in that region. That would ensure that comparable standards between gateway ports are maintained. That issue will be explored further with our Antarctic treaty partners.
The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about the transfer of the Faraday base to the Ukraine. On 6 February, the UK base of Faraday was formally transferred to the


Government of Ukraine. That followed detailed, lengthy negotiations, in which all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised were confronted.
In a spirit of scientific co-operation under the Antarctic treaty, the UK offered Faraday to the international Antarctic community. Ukraine responded favourably and Ukraine scientists were integral to the Antarctic programme of the former USSR. The transfer will enable them to re-establish their commitment to Antarctica. The transfer will also help to reduce the escalation of bases in Antarctica—a feature much criticised in the past by environmental groups.
Most important, Ukraine has agreed to continue the acquisition of long-standing scientific data sets. Data will be provided free to the UK and to relevant international bodies for at least the next 10 years.
Once Ukraine has consolidated its science programme at Faraday, now renamed Vernadsky, we look forward to it, in due course, applying for consultative status to the Antarctic treaty. We also look forward to Ukraine acceding to the environmental protocol. I am glad to be able to tell the House that in the interim Ukraine has made it clear that it will abide by the tough obligations of the protocol.
The transfer of Faraday is part of a major rationalisation of the BAS programme, a major objective of which is to strengthen the survey's science base in the British Antarctic territory by capitalising on the new infrastructure put in place by the Government since the mid-1980s. That has included the new purpose-built bases at Halley and Rothera; the expansion of the BAS fleet of aircraft, including the acquisition of a De Havilland Dash 7 to operate direct between Falklands and Rothera; and the launch of the survey's highly sophisticated research vessel, the RRS James Clark Ross. I have not seen the ship but have seen a model of her, and she looks an extremely exciting vessel.
The "Way Forward" programme, which attracted an additional £4 million in the 1993 public expenditure survey round, enabled new laboratory and accommodation facilities to be constructed at Signy in the south Orkneys and expansion of further laboratories at Rothera. That building programme is well on schedule. The transfer of terrestrial ecology and inshore marine biology to the new facilities at Rothera will offer major new scientific challenges.

Mr. Corbyn: There has been a large increase in the fur seal population on Signy. Is it affected by that development? If so, what is being done to protect the seals' ecosystem and stocks of food supplies?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am not aware that the seal population has been affected, but I will check and write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that opinion.
I refer next to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and to the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources—which was not specifically raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North but is important in this context. I wrote to my hon. Friend for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) on 22 March with a full explanation of our policy towards fishing around South Georgia. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library. I am grateful for the additional opportunity to point out the steps that we have taken to ensure the

conservation of fish stocks around South Georgia—something to which I attach particular importance, as I do to the conservation of all stocks in the Antarctic sea area. I know that sentiment is shared by the hon. Gentleman.
We are in no doubt about our sovereignty over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and hence our right to exercise coastal state jurisdiction around the islands. Fishing in sub-Antarctic waters, including the waters around South Georgia, is regulated by a multilateral treaty—the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, or CCAMLR. The commission established by the convention adopts conservation measures binding on its member states, but the commission has no enforcement powers. It is left to flag states to ensure that their vessels comply with the conservation measures. The commission was established in 1980, but flag state enforcement of the conservation measures has been largely ineffective. Over-fishing continued throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s and was increasing.
Non-members of the convention are not bound by the conservation measures, but the convention recognises that parties to it with sovereign islands within its area of application may exercise coastal state jurisdiction in respect of those islands. Such jurisdiction may be exercised in respect of all vessels, including those of countries that are not parties to the convention.
In recognition of the continuing threat posed by over-fishing to the conservation of the fish stocks, a 200-nautical mile maritime zone was proclaimed in 1993 around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. A fisheries ordinance was enacted, which provides for comprehensive regulation of fishing within the zone. Licences are required for fishing there. Licences are granted only in a manner consistent with the conservation measures adopted by the CCAMLR commission.

Mr. Corbyn: I mentioned the over-fishing of krill outside the designated 200-mile zone from South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Will the Minister confirm that that issue can be raised at the Utrecht meeting, or that there could be a separate meeting? If over-fishing of krill continues, the effect on other marine live and mammals will be enormous, and could have an ecological effect as devastating as over-whaling in the past, which led to the moratorium.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the over-fishing of krill. It is a critical part of the ecological chain. Over-fishing of krill could have a devastating knock-on effect. I cannot guarantee that this is part of the Utrecht discussion—I am not sure, but I will look into it and let the hon. Gentleman know. It is certainly a matter of primary concern to the UK Government, and we are in constant dialogue with other countries affected whose fishing fleets might threaten the ecological balance. I can therefore give the hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance that the Government take the issue extremely seriously.
Argentina asserts that our licensing regime is a new development that impinges on the fishing activities of Argentine-flagged vessels. The licensing regime operated by the Government of the territory has been no different this season from that in force in the previous two seasons. Since the introduction of the


fisheries ordinance, all vessels have been required to obtain a licence before fishing in the waters around South Georgia. Unlicensed vessels are subject to arrest and prosecution.
This year it was apparent that a number of vessels, including several Argentine-flagged vessels, intended to target this limited fishery, and that this number was far greater than the total allowable catch could withstand. The projection was for a fishing pressure of about 40 vessels, targeting a 4,000 tonne TAC. There would have been three results: first, a rapid exhaustion of the allowable catch; secondly, an uneconomic take for the majority, if not all, of the vessels involved; and, thirdly, there would have been the inevitable risk of large-scale illegal fishing as vessels attempted to ensure viable, economic returns on their fishing efforts.
The South Georgia licensing regime does not preclude vessels from fishing unhindered outside of South Georgia waters. But with due regard to the TAC, and other conservation measures, the commissioner for South Georgia limited the number of licences available to 10, although there was far greater demand. Licences were required by Chilean, Korean, Russian and US vessels. In addition, one Argentine vessel voluntarily applied for, and was granted, a licence. The vessel operator subsequently arranged to transfer the licence

to another non-Argentine vessel as part of a commercial arrangement. The allegation that we put pressure on the vessel to apply for a licence was wholly unfounded.
The South Georgia fisheries regime is legal in terms of our international obligations under the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. Moreover it is wholly consistent with the convention in terms of its conservation measures.
In summary, the United Kingdom remains committed to Antarctica. We shall continue to demonstrate that commitment through a programme of first-class science there. We shall also continue to maintain a high political profile within the Antarctic treaty system.
Antarctica remains the platform from which many of today's global processes such as ozone depletion, atmospheric pollution, global warming and sea-level rise can best be monitored. The hon. Gentleman touched on the importance of those activities. Such issues are crucial to the global environment and to mankind. The UK will continue to play an active role in environmental protection and scientific research in Antarctica. I am glad to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and to reiterate my thanks to him for raising this important subject in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Ten o'clock till Tuesday 16 April, pursuant to resolution [26 March].